Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 19

< December 18
December 20 >

December 19

Category:¡Uno! ¡Dos! ¡Tré!

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 29#Category:¡Uno! ¡Dos! ¡Tré!

Category:Defunct indoor ice hockey venues in the United States

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Back in March, we merged a big batch of indoor ice hockey venues categories but I forgot to tag their defunct siblings. To restate, "The overwhelming number of venues defined by being a venue for ice hockey are indoors so this distinction is unnecessary. While outdoor stadiums are occasionally used as venues, they are not defined by hosting an occasional ice hockey event." User:Namiba 22:10, 19 December 2024 (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:Military saints

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 20:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Although it does have a main article called military saints, that, too, has its own problems. If this was really only about soldiers in the Roman Army during the persecution of Christians, especially the Diocletianic Persecution of AD 303–313., as the cat desc claims, plenty of people do not belong in this category. Alternatively, it could be renamed to something more specific or between brackets, but that would likely also depend on the main article being cleaned up. A second alternative might be WP:LISTIFY to Military saint#List, and demand WP:RS for every entry on that list per WP:LISTCRIT. But my overall preference is just to delete this as an arbitrarycat, and request a serious cleanup of military saint. Thoughts? NLeeuw (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2024 (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:Russian military personnel of the war in Donbas

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 30#Category:Russian military personnel of the war in Donbas

Song contest performer categories

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. WP:TRAINWRECK; individual (or small, closely-related groups of) categories can be speedily renominated. But relisting is not going to untangle this, and there is no current consensus for any particular action. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Violation of WP:PERFCAT, specifically "Performers by production or performance venue". Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now nominated the sub-categories for CfD in a separate nomination: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 21#ESC/JESC entrant categories. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TSventon: That is a good point; I do think some of the contests listed above would not pass this criteria, but others would. With that in mind I am withdrawing the CfD nomination for these categories in particular, and will renominate separately if I believe a WP:OCAWARD does apply. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft oppose I do not think WP:PERFCAT applies. "Performers by production" is Avoid categorizing performers by an appearance at an event or other performance venue. These are competitions, however, not just performances. That is to say, if some singer other than a contestant performed at Eurovision 1992, e.g. during a break or opening ceremony, that is WP:NONDEF. But the contestants themselves are central to the competition. "Performers by venue" is like Comedians who once upon a time told a joke in the Three Rivers Stadium, while "Performers by appearance" is Comedians who once upon a time told a joke during half-time. It's WP:NONDEF to link a performer to a location, or to a brief appearance during an event in which they played no central role. But none of the nominated categories even mention the venue by name (because it is irrelevant), so I do not understand the rationale. NLeeuw (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw: I understand where you're coming from on this, however I think that ESC, JESC, and all the other contests listed above, are all essentially TV productions. From the policy I linked to, "[t]his also includes categorization by performance [...] in any specific radio, television, film, or theatrical production" I believe applies to these categories. I included the full title of the relevant section for total clarity, however just to reiterate I believe these categories fall under the "production" element of this sub-section, and that the "venue" element doesn't apply here. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I do not agree (yet), but I can see where you are taking that argument. However, the "venue" part in your rationale still does not appear to apply in this case (Edit: Ah, we appear to agree on that). NLeeuw (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you say that a sports competition, like a baseball match, automatically becomes a "production" if it is televised? The sportspeople are "performing", in a way, to entertain the audience. The people watching at home may easily outnumber those in the stadium, depending on how high-level the match is, so the televised "version" of the match might have a much larger overall social impact than for the attendees observing it with their own senses. If it does count as a "production", I'm concerned that this might establish a far-reaching, unintended precedent. NLeeuw (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair point, however it is not simply because these contests are televised that I believe they are television productions. They only exist because they are organised by national broadcasters. In the specific example of the Eurovision Song Contest, the main organiser is the European Broadcasting Union, a union of public-service broadcasters across Europe, Africa and Asia, and only EBU member broadcasters can participate; as an artist you can't simply "enter" the contest, you have to be chosen by a country's broadcaster as its entrant. The same can be said for Junior Eurovision and Young Musicians, which are also EBU events, while the other contests listed here are also organised by broadcasters or broadcasting unions. This is why I believe for these contests and these categories in particular there is an WP:PERFCAT violation. Of course I understand the hesitancy when it comes to an unintended precedent to this decision, so I'd also like to understand where you think this might lead to. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it's obvious, isn't it? We are facing deletion of hundreds of categories relating to participants or winners of any kinds of competitions that were ever televised or put on radio or livestreamed on the Internet or otherwise broadcast, even if the competition could be held and observed by an audience without being broadcast at all (such as that baseball match). Similarly, Eurovision could be held as a competition without being broadcast (just as the earliest Olympics were not); it just emerged in a time when television was emerging as a broadcasting medium. So I'm not sure how WP:DEFINING the "production" part of it really is, and whether it should take precedence over the competition part for categorisation purposes. That said, I can follow a lot of your arguments, and I'm actually getting kind of sad that at some point we'll have to choose between your arguments and mine. ;) NLeeuw (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I don't see how this is any different than people participating in a game show. Whether on screen or on stage, it's entertainment that is a performance event. Even if the "contestants/participants" categories are kept, the 2 conductors and composers cats are clearly examples of performers by performance. - jc37 20:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the conductors and composers cats are evidently ready for deletion. The others I am not yet persuaded by. NLeeuw (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Eurovision Song Contest entrants (and all subcategories) and Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest entrants (and all subcategories). These are defining events in their careers for sure.
    As for the other "contestants" categories, I'm not sure. Some, like Melodifestivalen, can actually "define destinies". --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm guessing some of you probably are Americans, and you don't understand how important Eurovision is. Every entrant gets their part of the fame, you don't have to win to become famous. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A person's "fame" has nothing to do with whether an article is categorized or not. - jc37 01:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moscow Connection: Can you please explain why you believe these categories are an exception to WP:PERFCAT? Notability is not the main crux for my request for delete, it is what I believe to be an overcategorisation issue. I am not suggesting removing the artists' articles from Wikipedia, or questioning their notability or "fame"; I'm just talking about whether we need these categories, given that we have guidelines that explicitly state [a]void categorizing performers by an appearance at an event, which ESC, JESC and the other contests listed would fall under. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I think one's participation in the contests is a defining characteristic. The peak of most people's careers. (That's especially true for kids, who take part in the JESC, and then they are notable only in their own countries, their "international career" is over.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally use these categories to find singer articles cause their participation in the European song contests is the only thing I remember about most people. To me, most ESC and JESC contestants are like one-hit wonders, they are known only for being in the JESC/ESC. . --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment. The page that you are basing this proposal on (WP:PERFCAT) actually says at the very top: "One of the central goals of the categorization system is to categorize articles by their defining characteristics. Defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to."
    And I think it's obvious that most of these artists are remembered by their participation in a Eurovision song contest and that "reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to" these artists as Eurovision entrants for their countries.
    I think this deletion proposal is a good example of following rules blindly. We have some random rule written by a random person, and you are voting "delete" without even thinking a little bit. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I fail to see how these are different from Category:Olympic competitors by country and Category:Olympic competitors by year cause ESC and JESC are that important and for most artists their participation in the contest(s) is the peak of their career. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2024 (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:American film industry accountants

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 to Category:American accountants and Category:American film people. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Narrow underpopulated category SMasonGarrison 13:18, 19 December 2024 (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:Online poker players

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 to Category:Poker players. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recently created, orphan category, that does not need to be split from potential parent category. UtherSRG (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2024 (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.

Writing systems

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 Without prejudice against a broader nomination * Pppery * it has begun... 20:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated single-article categories, unhelpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While we're at it, I don't think it makes sense to keep Category:Writing systems introduced in the 1030s and similar categories until the 18th-century. Pichpich (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and follow-up by deleting the whole Category:Writing systems by date of introduction tree as WP:NONDEF. I'm taking the observations of nom and Pichpich to their logical conclusion, namely that these categories do no aid navigation at all, and the time of introduction is just very non-defining for writing systems, if we are able to date them at all. The whole challenge of any sort of historical research is that most sources ever created in the past have been destroyed throughout the centuries. And so we'll never have anything like complete evidence where something like a writing system came from and when it was first used and by whom and why and how and whether that was really unique, or just kinda like what already existed but under another name, in another place or slightly but not radically modified. These are complicated questions to answer with the often scanty evidence available to us, and those questions should be discussed in full-blown, stand-alone articles. Categories like this cannot provide references to sources for a claim that, say, Aristarchian symbols were really introduced in the 2nd century BCE. I think it would take only 10 minutes to find at least 5 papers in journals arguing some other date. This stuff just isn't well-categorisable. Let's get rid of it all. NLeeuw (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say, let's leave deletion for a next broader nomination. By the way I can imagine that we can pinpoint the introduction of newer writing systems more precisely (e.g. since the 16th century). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2024 (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:Possibly fictional people from Europe

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Category:Possibly fictional people from Europe

Category:Rhythm and blues music awards

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 20:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Perhaps this is speediable due to the naming of similar categories under Category:Rhythm and blues, but I'm taking the conservative route and taking this to CfD to discuss renaming the category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad I took to full discussion then. As opposed to the ambiguity of pop and rock, rhythm and blues is still music without "music" as a suffix. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 09:16, 19 December 2024 (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:Fictional monasteries

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 to Category:Fictional religious places and Category:Monasteries in fiction and Category:Fictional buildings and structures. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is only one proper article in here. It is unlikely to be flooded with enough articles to justify a category (and flooding it with redirects would be bad form and duplicate the organization at Category:Monasteries_in_fiction). Jontesta (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2024 (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:Discworld peoples

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 to Category:Discworld. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is only one article in this category, and it's questionably notable. There is a low chance of this being flooded with enough articles to justify the need for it (and flooding it with redirects would be bad form). Jontesta (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2024 (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.