Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All old discussions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a list of all open CfD discussions more than seven days old. It is maintained by a bot.

September 14

Category:Forestry researcher stubs

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Stub category with fewer than 60 members; upmerge to Category:Academic biography stubs per WP:WPSS procedure. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-piracy battles involving Great Britain

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I don't think we need to diffuse by century*nationality intersection, especially given that there are only 4 pages in here Mason (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rodeo in the arts

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:NARROWCAT Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy discussion
@Marcocapelle: from Speedy Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of the Jews in the Middle East

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, and keep a redirect, Middle East and West Asia are very overlapping concept. I will tag both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. ME includes all of Turkey and Egypt, but not the South Caucasus. WA excludes parts of Turkey and all of Egypt, but includes the South Caucasus. Ergo ME =/= WA.
I could possibly get behind "Middle East and West Asia", but that's a mouthful. Keeping separate ME and WA lists seems the better alternative. Lewisguile (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ME is a subcat of WA, which is certainly defensible. But much of the content of WA is clearly ME. If we decide what ME actually covers, say it in a note, & rearrange accordingly, won't that fix things? Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can and should decide what these terms cover for the purposes of the category, and say that. We should be doing that for all such ambiguous terms, such as Central Europe etc. Otherwise chaos. Johnbod (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prehistoric Asia

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, it is unclear how the two categories are supposed to be different from each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge direction? (I will tag Category:Prehistory of Asia.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't have a preferred merge direction, maybe User:Nederlandse Leeuw has, one way or the other. I do notice however that not just Asia has this issue, it applies likewise to all other continents. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Short answer: I'm not sure what to advise here. Seeing my previous proposal for renaming Ancient Fooland to Ancient history of Fooland was a failure, I'm reluctant to to suggest any direction to take into making these catnames more consistent, certainly as long as the main article titles are not in some way WP:TITLECONned first. But that is a discussion that should probably take place elsewhere and not here.
Long answer
Purely by catname and main article names, Category:Prehistory by country seems to show Prehistoric Fooland is more commonly used than Prehistory of Fooland or Fooian prehistory. But there are some notable differences that should make us cautious to make a WP:C2C argument too quickly.
These three continents almost consistently have subcatnames like Prehistoric Fooland, usually (but not always) with correspondingly titled main articles:
Category:Prehistoric Europe by country > Prehistoric Europe
Category:Prehistoric Africa by country > Prehistoric Africa
Category:Prehistoric Asia by country > Prehistoric Asia
But, present-day countries have inconsistent article titles, so there's no easy WP:C2D argument to make here. To take Europe as an example:
versus
versus
A casual observation may be that Prehistoric Fooland is much more popular for articles on the British Isles, other islands and peninsulas, but Prehistory of Fooland seems more popular for areas in continential Europe those geographical borders may not be that clear-cut.
The other continents are more inconsistent, and we've got a lot of redundant layers, like
Category:Prehistory of Central America:
There is a lot of cleaning up we could do, but where do we even start? Like I said in my short answer, I think main article titles should be made consistent first if we want to harmonise catnames afterwards. WP:C2D stipulates that catnames follow main article titles, not the other way around.
NLeeuw (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chemical compounds by type

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The contents of this Category clearly don't fit with the current name: none of them is "by type", as they all use different parameters.

which is what gave me the idea for the proposed rename. Honestly, I'm not entirely sure that's the right name, so if somebody comes up with a better name I'll be more than happy to support. Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By property? Remsense ‥ 论 15:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still looking for thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greek mythology by region

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: These categories are for mythology relating to the places rather than mythology necessarily originating in those places, as the current titles imply. There are many Greek myths about places didn't originate in those places and many for which it is impossible to know where the myths originated. Some of the subcategories of Category:Greek mythology by region already follow the proposed naming convention. Mclay1 (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The rationale proposes a distinction without a difference. Additionally, renaming these will make them harder to search for, since there are already too many entries for "Mythology" to display in the search window, while most of the articles using demonyms appear right away when someone starts to type them. Consistency is not a strong argument when balanced against convenience. A handful of these names may not be familiar to readers, but readers who are familiar enough with the topics to be searching for them would probably recognize them; and many of the proposed names are equally objectionable.
For instance, "Mythology of Elefsina", rather than "Eleusis", since inexplicably the entire history of ancient Eleusis is covered under the unrecognizable modern name of the town; "Mythology of Corfu", as though "Corfu" were the name of a place one encounters in classical history or mythology; "Mythology of Corinthia", when "Corinthia" is the name of a modern administrative region of Greece that did not exist in antiquity; "Mythology of Arcadia, Peloponnese", as though any other Arcadia would have distinctive mythological topics; "Mythology of Salamis Island", when Salamis was never so called "Salamis Island" in antiquity and will not generally be encountered under that name, and there is no corresponding mythological topic for the other Salamis, in Cyprus. P Aculeius (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are not named based on the convenience of searching for the category name; most readers are not finding categories that way, and helping users get to them quickly is not a consideration. First and foremost should be accuracy, and these current names are not accurate. There is a distinction between the mythology relating to a place and the local mythology of the people from that place, but there is of course overlap and the proposed names work for both.
Secondly, using the modern names of the places would be consistent with the rest of the category trees for those places (we use "Greece" and not "Hellas"); however, if it would be better to use the ancient names of the places, we can do that rather than discarding the entire rename for that reason.
To address two specific ones: Corinthia is used for the ancient region (see Regions of ancient Greece#Corinthia), and the disambiguation in the category tree for Category:Arcadia, Peloponnese is necessary to distinguish it from other places called Arcadia. We generally keep subcategory names consistent for clarity even if they wouldn't be ambiguous. Just because we don't currently have mythology categories for other places of the same name, doesn't mean it wouldn't be confusing without disambiguation. Mclay1 (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will concede that the searching convenience is not a strong argument for categories, the way it would be with article titles. But the proposed titles are still counter-intuitive, so it is not entirely irrelevant; and if your argument is for consistency, then both categories including the subject and their corresponding articles should begin with the name of the place represented, rather than a generic word such as "mythology". When you're researching mythological subjects, do you look under "Greek Mythology" or "Mythology of Ancient Greece"? "Norse Mythology" or "Mythology of the Norse?"
There may be an argument to make for moving some of these titles, where the demonym is not as familiar as the name of the place, e. g. "Mythology of Cyprus, Epirus, Salamis" may be more logical than "Cypriot, Epirot, Salaminian mythology", but this would be the case for only a few of them, which again demonstrates that consistency, while not entirely irrelevant, is less helpful for determining titles than natural language.
With respect to the modern names, they are simply anachronistic in speaking of subjects from antiquity, and virtually all scholarship written in English over the last three centuries will use Greek- and Roman-era names in preference to modern ones. In some cases such as "Greece", there is a further convention of Anglicization, but it forms on the Roman-era "Graecia" rather than Greek "Hellas". But you will have trouble finding any scholarship referring to the "Elefsinian mysteries", or similar descriptions, and if there is any, it will probably be in recent translations of modern Greek works.
I will retract my criticism of "Corinthia", finding that the term is used for the territory belonging to Corinth in antiquity. However, "Corfu" is as anachronistic as "Elefsina" and even less recognizable; and consistency within category trees is a weak argument for disambiguation when there is no risk of confusion. Nobody says "Arcadia, Peloponnese" or "Salamis Island", and there is no need to do so in these category names just because disambiguation is unavoidable in other contexts.
It's not merely that we don't currently have categories for mythology of other, similarly-named places, but that it is unlikely that such categories would exist in the first place. For instance, the Salamis in Cyprus would presumably be covered under the mythology of Cyprus; and there is no other ancient Arcadia that would have any distinct mythology; the barely-known Cretan town is usually called "Arcades", and other places called "Arcadia" were not established or did not bear the name until after paganism was stamped out. The strongest argument for disambiguation would be "Thebes, Greece", but the corresponding article and category on the mythology of Thebes in Egypt are under "Theban Triad". There is not much risk of confusion, and a hatnote would probably be sufficient to help anyone who arrives at the wrong topic.
To re-iterate, consistency is not a strong argument for renaming categories that are already unambiguous, particularly when the extant names are what readers would most likely expect to find; and in many cases renaming them to be consistent with each other would make them inconsistent with article titles that readers would expect to encounter. It would be better to deal with these on a case-by-case basis. P Aculeius (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus; additional comments would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not have an opinion about "fooian" versus "of foo", generally, but I concur with P Aculeius that we should not use modern names when it conflicts with common names of ancient Greece as used by classical scholars. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DC Comics animated series title cards

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Both cover the exact same scope as these title cards are just the on-screen logos and have overlapping descriptions and categories. Cats are not too big to warrant separate ones over a technicality, which can be confusing, especially when both have logo and title card/intertitle-named files. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games about aircraft

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: These are overlapping categories. THe merge target is older and was merged into this one outside of the cfd process. Mason (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These cannot be overlapping categories as Category:Aviation video games currently does not contain any content. I also believe you are saying I should have renamed Category:Aviation video games rather than creating a new category. Though these two categories are technically different, as the name and subcategories have or had a different structure, also Category:Helicopter video games wasn't a part of Category:Aviation video games before I redirected the category. Furthermore the category Category:Video games about aircraft is very small, just saying. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You removed all the content from the Aviation category. All of the excuses/explanations you've listed does not justify circumventing the CFD process. Mason (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
QuantumFoam66 (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 13

By-state law citation templates

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Single member categories for templates which impede navigation. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partial support – in my opinion, I think merging the [insert state] law citation templates category with the [insert state] law category is a good idea. But maybe keep that and the [insert state] templates category separate. That’s my 2¢ anyway. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 03:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning is that I could see a state templates category having stuff that does not necessarily involve state laws. Such as perhaps parks, roads, cities, landmarks, etc. That’s why I think the state templates themselves should remain a separate standalone category.
Although the other two appear to be redundant to me (at least in my opinion); and should probably be merged. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 03:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand what merging a category entails, Hurricane Clyde – which is not your fault, given merging categories is different from merging any other type of page! Merging Category:A to Category:B and Category:C is shorthand for "delete Category:A after adding its contents to both Category:B and Category:C". Category:B and Category:C would both continue to exist.
So, to take one example from this nomination, {{Cite NVSR law}} would be placed in Category:United States law citation templates, Category:Nevada law, and Category:Nevada templates – and none of those three categories would be changed (other than the fact they now contain {{Cite NVSR law}} instead of Category:Nevada law citation templates). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well then I think the law citation templates category should be deleted and it’s contents moved to the state law template. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 23:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
State law category I mean. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 23:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

Category:Fictional witches and wizards

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:XY redirect which should be deleted. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Fictional witches and wizards, and instead Merge Category:Fictional witches and Category:Fictional wizards into Category:Fictional witches and wizards. The distinction isn't always clear, not even by gender, as the term "witch" has been applied to males, and "wizard" to females. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 6

Category:Interwiki link templates - inline

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I was going to suggest a rename to fix the MOS:DASH error, but I think this name flows better. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Technical universities and colleges in Germany

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category is a mess, based on the mistranslation "Technical University".

In Germany, there are "Technische Universitäten" (which usually call themselves "Institute/University of Technology" in English) and "Technische Hochschulen", which are Fachhochschulen. They're both completely different types of higher education institutions (both depending on the type of high school degree you need to access them, as well as the right to confer PhDs and Habilitation). You can read more about this in de:Technische Hochschule and de:Technische Universität.

It's been a constant for a while in enwiki that many editors (without really understanding the differences) translate everything as "Technical University" (that's actually what Google Translate suggests in both cases), but it creates a big mess.

This category should be deleted, and it should be replaced by Category: Technische Universitäten in Germany and Category: Technische Hochschulen in Germany, which recognizes that both things included in this wastebasket category (based on poor translation) are completely different things. SFBB (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS1: The same issues applies to other countries with differentiation between Fachhochschulen/Hogescholen and Universities like Austria, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Belgium. I understand there is an aim for consistency given the existence of Category:Technical universities and colleges by country but it simply does not work, because within those systems you're talking about completely different things:
PS2: Perhaps all Technische Universitäten should be merely classified under Category:Universities in Germany as there is legally no difference between them (as correctly acknowledged in List of universities in Germany). Technische Universitäten are, in their own right, full universities (not technical universities) with a technical tradition, name, and perhaps emphasis? But, based on their right as full universities, they offer all subjects that are usually found in full universities (and make them fundamentally different from what is understood as a technical university or college). For example, just listing the Technische Universitäten for TU9, but this applies to most TUs:
Law (e.g. TU Dresden, TU Darmstadt, Leibniz University Hannover),
Medicine (e.g. TU München, TU Dresden, RWTH Aachen),
Humanities (e.g.TU Berlin, TU Braunschweig, RWTH Aachen, Leibniz University Hannover, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, University of Stuttgart),
History (TU Berlin, TU Darmstadt, TU Dresden),
Education (TU Berlin, TU Braunschweig, RWTH Aachen), Leibniz University Hannover),
Social Sciences(TU München, TU Darmstadt, RWTH Aachen, TU Braunschweig, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, University of Stuttgart))

SFBB (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For discussion on non-deletion paths forward (though, of course, it may be decided that deletion is the best path forward!)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus seems to favor renaming; discussion on rename target would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason to rename this category away from consistency with Category:Technical universities and colleges by country. It sounds like Technische Hochschulen are technical universities – in other words, that one isn't a poor translation, so there's no issue with the title. The English term "technical university" is unambiguous here, so it doesn't need to be disambiguated. The only problem with the category is that some articles have been erroneously placed into it. The solution is to remove them from the category, and put a note on its description page to help future editors avoid making the same error. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any split is better that the current situation, so yes: I support it. Anyways, some thoughts about it:

1.- Keeping Category:Technical universities and colleges in Germany without the TUs may theoretically work, but I don't think it's a good idea because i) Technical university is a false cognate of Technische Universität, and it may lead to a lot of confusion and (thus) maintenance.
2.- On the other side (because of the question about which of the two categories after the split should be linked to the upper category Category:Technical universities and colleges by country), the upper category is also problematic. While in other countries the division may not be as clear-cut as in Germany, Austria, NL, Belgium, Switzerland, etc., where there is a clear cut between both types of institutions related to the type of high-school degree required to access them as well as their ability to confer doctoral degree,, the difference is still there. For instance in the US the "mother" category Category:Technological universities in the United States (note that here the category is technological universities, which is different from technical universities) also include full universities, such as MIT (focused on research, conferring PhD degrees, and covering a wide range of education including anthropology, literature, humanities, history, poli sci, biology, cognitive science, etc.) and clearly technical institutions such as Cal Poly, which are clearly oriented towards applied sciences and "learning by doing" (and they do not offer PhD degrees). They're completely different types of education. Obviously the division is not as clear-cut (as in the US there are not different types of high school degrees that allow accessing different types of higher education institutions), but it is clear that there is a problem (obviously MIT has much more in common with full or traditional universities than with Cal Poly). The discussion in Institute of technology#Institutes of technology versus polytechnics is quite good.
3.- In general, I think we could begin by splitting the clear-cut cases (Germany and the aforementioned countries), where it makes no sense to group both types of institutions together. I’d also suggest setting aside the "mother" category for the moment (not linking any of the new categories to the mother category). Later on, we should consider splitting the Category:Technical universities and colleges by country, but that’s a more significant issue, and we would need to define clear criteria (one good criterion could be the ability to confer PhD degrees). That being said, I’m not sure if that discussion should be here or elsewhere. SFBB (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I just discovered more problems. Most (but not all) TUs are already listed under Category:Universities in Germany (that is the slightest of the issues) and there is also the category Category:Engineering universities and colleges in Germany which is as messy as Category:Technical universities and colleges in Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (also mixing up Fachhochschulen and TUs). This is really a mess. The worst part is that there also exist the category Category:Engineering universities and colleges by country as a subcategory of Category:Technical universities and colleges by country and (after checking for about one hour in many of them) every editor is categorizing whatever anywhere. It's a complete mess, and the more I dive into the categories, the more I'm getting convinced this needs an integral solution.
Of course, we can start with the obvious cases of Germany, Austria, Switzerland, NL and Belgium (where the difference between institutions is 100% clear-cut), but all these categories are an enormous mess. And obviously categorizing together many, many things that have absolutely nothing in common is only creating disinformation.
@HouseBlaster: while I think there is a consensus about the initial question, please re-list as this requires more discussion (I certainly would not know how to continue).
I also tag Jlwoodwa, Marcocapelle.
SFBB (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot relist the discussion because I am now a participant. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with taking on the problems one by one....but I'd like to know how to continue? Any opinion? do you also see the problem? SFBB (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 3

Category:Prejudice and discrimination in fiction

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:XY, this is an unhelpful multi-target category redirect. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: INVOLVED relisting to tag Category:Prejudice in fiction.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 30

Category:1501 establishments in Venezuela

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Category:1501 establishments in Venezuela is a single-member category which is unhelpful for navigation (and Category:1500s establishments in Venezuela would have the same problem if that was the upmerge target). Upmerge for now to the century level and delete the categories which will then become empty. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 26

Multiiple CC BY-SA licenses categories

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match parent and siblings in Category:Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike files. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we use a range in the title instead (1.0–2.5, 1.0–3.0, 1.0–4.0)? Gonnym (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a slight preference for explicitly listing each license – mostly due to the awkwardness of version 2.5 – but I would not lose sleep over a range. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Circling back, I prefer a range. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 25

Category:Alumni of Vakalo College

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one page in here. I'm tempted to just delete given that there isn't a page for Vakalo College Mason (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am definitely on team just delete both Category:Alumni of Vakalo College and Category:Vakalo College given Vakalo College is red. I will tag Category:Vakalo College. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per HouseBlaster. --Sakakami (talk) 07:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 24

Category:YearInCountryPortalBox with no existing country portal

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Rename in the spirit of WP:C2D per {{Year in country portal box}}. It does not qualify for CFDS because it I only renamed earlier today per WP:TPN (which says we should use standard English spacing for template names), so I am bringing this to a full CFD. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endings by year

[edit]

more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge, this is an odd grouping of a "disestablishments" subcategory with a "deaths" subcategory, two completely unrelated topics. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Disestablishments and deaths have in common precisely the fact that they are both types of ending. This is why we have a distinct Category:Endings (which does contain Category:Death and Category:Disestablishments). The endings-by-year categories are occasionally used for the endings of things that aren't obviously "disestablishments" (which Category:Disestablishments characterises as "ending of organizations, settlements, companies, or other things which involve a distinct body of people with a shared purpose") and, could be used for a wider range of endings (e.g. closing ceremonies, deaths, species extinctions). Existing examples: Governorship of Mike Huckabee, NASCAR Cup Series career of Jeff Gordon, 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides. In general, the things placed in the Disestablishments by year categories have probably tended to be a bit broader than the Category:Disestablishments definition... Furius (talk) 11:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 19

Category:Wikipedia utility templates

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I propose to upmerge to Category:Wikipedia templates by task, because the word "utility" doesn't mean anything specific. The description doesn't help either:

Templates in this category are used in articles, portals, templates, and other pages to help create and format those pages.

If you do not immediately find what you are looking for in here, try the subcategories.

Dumping everything into Category:Wikipedia templates by task will help subcategorizing the templates and the subcategories, once more of them are visible in the same category. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any history to suggest that templates being put directly into the by task category will get subcategorized through regular maintenance instead of just removing the by task category? Does the description at Category:Wikipedia templates by task need to be updated to indicate that templates should only be subcategorized instead of removed from that category before making this move? VanIsaac, GHTV contWpWS 18:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Category:Sidebar templates by topic (9) together with Category:Sidebar templates (7) around four years ago used to have hundreds of templates directly in them. Partly, because of the weird naming until Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 27#Category:"Part of a series on" sidebar templates. The subcategorization by me started around the time of this discussion. A couple hundreds of subcategories were created, e.g. approximately 168 in these 500 edits.
Similarly, several thousand templates used to be in Category:Userboxes (972). There, several participants of the WikiProject Userboxes worked on it after the invitation (see also one, two, three, four, five). It was brought down to just the meta-templates (like {{Userbox}}), but then started climbing again. Nowadays, only Catfurball is working on it, as far as I know, so the counter is back up to eight hundred. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, I've already started subcategorizing Category:Wikipedia utility templates (281), starting with Repetition templates and HTML single tag templates/Wikipedia XHTML tag-replacing templates. —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the rationale: in terms of assumed purpose, Category:Wikipedia utility templates is indistinguishable from Category:Wikipedia templates, as all templates are utilities,[a] and all templates are expected to have some utility.[b] —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ if the word is understood in senses #2 and #7 on Wiktionary – 2. Something that is useful. and 7. (computing) A software program designed to perform a single task or a small range of tasks, often to help manage and tune computer hardware, an operating system or application software.
  2. ^ sense #1, 1. The state or condition of being useful; usefulness.
  3. ^ Side note: templates in Character-substitution templates don't do any formatting, so it shouldn't be a subcategory of Text-specific formatting and function templates, but I haven't gotten around to this part of the category tree yet.
  4. ^ P.S. During this discussion and discussions around Template tracking by task I am also starting to think that Wikipedia templates by style isn't serving a good purpose, because it's a mix of templates by shape ("box", "bar", "message box", "table") and templates by location ("header", "sidebar", "footer").
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_old_discussions&oldid=1049242785"