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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:PERFCAT; we generally don't categorize sportspeople by what events they participate in (e.g., no Wimbledon tennis players, or such; except the Olympics) why should the Giro d'Italia be an exception? We categorize winners (see Category:Wimbledon champions) and may do so here but we we ought not categorize by mere participation which is akin to a performance cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, including RD's additional comment. --Just N. (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2020 (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.
Nominator's rationale: his small category (4 articles) is unlikely to grow significantly in the near future. User:Namiba 20:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This category exists specifically because it's an intersection of those three that has multiple entries and thus can be collected as a subcat of those. Four entries is not a "small category" and potential growth or lack thereof is accordingly irrelevant. - The BushrangerOne ping only 02:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Four entries has been consistently judged as a small category here. There are potentially thousands of similar small categories that are at the intersection of numerous category trees which are not created because they are category clutter and the very reason why WP:SMALLCAT was written.--User:Namiba 14:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SMALLCAT means - in my experience - 1-3 categories, and I distinctly recall in the past 3 being mentioned as the general cap. If people have been "consistently judging" 4 as a SMALLCAT then that sort of creep needs to be reversed. - The BushrangerOne ping only 23:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The typically accepted threshold is actually 5, but 4-article categories are usually okay as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: 3 of the 4 articles contain no more than two sentences and would likely be deleted/merged if nominated. Creating a series of single line stubs on old/small ballparks does not justify the continuation of a category. Also note that I removed Category:Baseball venues in West Texas, which has been nominated for deletion.--User:Namiba 14:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. This is a SMALLCAT and an over-intersection of location. Surprised that four is now considered big enough to not be a smallcat. SportingFlyerT·C 16:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've merged 3 of the 4 articles into their respective articles. They were stubs of 1-3 sentences in length with few if any independent sources and no claims to outstanding characteristics.--User:Namiba 15:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:SMALLCAT, assuming that the current status (1 article in the category) remains stable. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2020 (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:Players of American football from Detroit[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.
Nominator's rationale: An overcategorisation - we only categorise people by their general occupation (sportspeople), not by their specific occupation (see [1][2], WP:OCLOCATION, and for instance the broad categories at Category:People from St. Louis by occupation). There's currently no consensus on whether a limited exception exists for cities where this might be defining, but after a search, I don't see any reason why Detroit would be eligible for this exception for American football. SportingFlyerT·C 20:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A debate on this very topic just ended 6 days ago. There was no consensus in that wide-ranging discussion and there is no reason to believe that there will be now. The discussions you cite are from 2013.--User:Namiba 20:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This category was created two days ago, and is for a different sport entirely, and for a city where the location isn't a defining characteristic. The previous discussion closed as no consensus and wasn't a rubber stamp to start expanding these sorts of categories. SportingFlyerT·C 21:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The same principal exists: there is no consensus for or against creating sport-city categories such as this one. I don't think targeting one category in a much larger tree (there are dozens of similar categories for cities in the United States and around the world) makes much sense. Rather than starting an endless series of deletion discussions for each of these categories, I propose that we have a wider-ranging discussion on occupation-city categories. If there was no consensus to delete Basketball players from Shkodër or Category:Basketball players from Los Angeles, I don't see why there would be a consensus to delete this category.--User:Namiba 21:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's completely different, but that's fine. I agree with the central discussion - I'm willing to withdraw this if you're willing to help set it up/stop the proliferation of these categories until we resolve it? If so let me know and I'll move the discussion to your talk page (or mine if you'd prefer.) SportingFlyerT·C 21:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think either of our talk pages is the right place for such a forum. If you created a RFC at Wikipedia talk:Categorization, I think that would be the proper format. If that occurs, I will stop making new categories until the conclusion of that process.--User:Namiba 14:35, 17 December 2020 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Currently only contains one article, Fidel Castro. Previously also contained Mariela Castro but that was cited to a poor source. Gbear605 (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Postdlf Ah yep, you're right. I'm not super familiar with categorization guidelines. I withdraw this proposal then. Gbear605 (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The whole tree is a bit odd because people are categorized by something they are lacking, namely membership of a religious organization or movement. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone who is simply nonreligious identifies/can be identified as atheist. postdlf (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True but there is no clear difference between other nonreligious and atheïst people, they are all defined by lack of membership of a religion. Only atheist activists stand out, but I am not sure whether this category tree aims to focus on activists. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is too big a can of worms to open in such a narrow CFD, but classification as an atheist requires far more than you're claiming. You should read more on it. postdlf (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So what exact requirements does Fidel Castro comply with, for him to be in this category? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for another reason. I agree with Postdlf's contention that the exception of WP:SMALLCAT applies. But presumably membership in, and leadership of, a professedly atheist organization (the Communist Party of Cuba) makes this cat redundant. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not defining for Castro - nor for many in other country categories. Rathfelder (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete b/c not defining for Castro and others. --Just N. (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a dismissal of the entire Category:Atheists structure (if not Category:People by religion), not an argument against having a particular subcategory of it. WP:DEFINING is a standard applied to category creation, not to every question of inclusion once that category exists. If Castro was a Cuban who was verifiably an atheist, then he should be included in this category. postdlf (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not neccesarily. For one thing, in the case of religion we are not actually categorizing by belief, but by affiliation with an organized structure. There is no organized structure of atheism in most cases, and we are not limiting these categorizations to those who so affiliated even when there is such a structure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose does not qualify as WP:SMALLCAT, as a biographical category it is strongly susceptible to change. The deletionist's arguments per WP:CAT/R doesn't bode well either since atheism was a strong theme of Castro's and other communist organizations. Discussions on whether the article (Fidel Castro) belong in this category or not should take place on that article's talk page, not here. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:30, 11 January 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 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.
Nominator's rationale: Category with a serious subjectivity problem. The term "suburb" has two slightly different meanings -- it can be either a smaller town near but outside the city limits of a bigger city, or a residential neighbourhood in the city which is defined by detached single-family homes instead of row housing, condominiums or apartment complexes. But this category has the potential to collect almost any drama or comedy series about a family (The Simpsons?) who live in a detached home, regardless of whether it's set in a city neighbourhood, a smaller town in a big city's metropolitan area, a small rural town that doesn't fit any definition of "suburb" at all or a completely unspecified location that just seems suburban -- and furthermore, even for the shows that are clearly set in suburbia, it still isn't always patently obvious that the show is necessarily about that. (Is Santa Clarita Diet about suburbia per se, or is it about a living-dead zombie woman who eats people and merely happens to live in a suburb?) So this isn't so much a category with clear and unambiguous inclusion criteria, as a recipe for subjective editwarring. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Television series set in suburbia. If the wording were changed from about to set in, that would remove the issue of whether or not TV shows set in suburbia are about it. Millions of suburbanites don't live in detached houses, so it's not limited to that. Some TV shows are often described as being about suburbia &/or suburban people, even in brief descriptions, so it appears that it's often a defining aspect of them. I'm not aware of edit-warring in relation to this cat during the 6y+ that it's existed, nor anything relevant having changed since the previous CfD about it in 2017. Jim Michael (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you're not aware of edit-warring doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I examined this precisely because a show you've probably never heard of was added to it within the last 24 hours despite being set in a small town that meets no normal definition of "suburbia" at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A huge number of cats have had articles incorrectly added to them. When that happens, they should be removed. In the large majority of cases the best response is to remove them from the cat rather than delete the cat.
Have any articles been repeatedly added & removed from this cat? If not, it's unlikely that such edit-warring will start after over 6y. Jim Michael (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An article can only be removed from an incorrect category if somebody notices that it's an incorrect category — meaning if the show I caught hadn't been literally set in my own grandparents' hometown, meaning I've been there and know that it's a small rural farm town and not a suburb of anything, its incorrectness would not have been noticed. And that's precisely why we don't do categories for subjective and undefined inclusion criteria where inclusion comes down to opinion and/or interpretation rather than clearly objective facts that can be verified. And I don't need to have monitored the category for six years and kept a permanent list of every show that might ever have been added to it erroneously: I need only show one example of incorrect use to demonstrate that there's a problem. There may very well be several other shows still in the category which don't actually belong there — I can't speak to that at all, because I'm not familiar with all of the shows in it, and can only speak to shows I know (which is why I also took issue with The Simpsons and Santa Clarita Diet.) Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An article being wrongly placed in a cat is very common & doesn't indicate that the cat should be deleted.
The Simpsons is often described as being set in suburbia, being about a suburban family etc., so many sources think it is defining. The Simpsons house states in its Design section that the house is suburban. Jim Michael (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being set in a suburb and being about suburbia are two different things. postdlf (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Set in has a clearer & broader definition, which is why I suggest it be renamed accordingly. Jim Michael (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Common" or not, it's unacceptable and must always be caught and fixed immediately, because it reflects badly on the project if we fail to do that. Bearcat (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining; nearly every tv show is set in either an urban, suburban, small town, or rural setting; why are any of these defining when there are limited possibilities here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a trivial intersection and per Carlos. For the content of the Tv show it usually does not matter whether it is set in an urban or a suburban setting. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is simply a medium-specific subcategory of Category:Fiction about suburbia. I see the nom's concerns about it being overbroad or poorly defined, but the whole structure should be addressed at once, or an explanation given as to why categorizing TV should be singled out for deletion, but not categorizing novels and films in this way. postdlf (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. This subcat is nominated for a second time, but neither the parent cat you mention - nor either of the other subcats - have ever gone to CfD. Everyone in this discussion who wants it deleted has put forward arguments which are about scope/definition &/or whether it's defining. None have said anything that's specific to its medium. A TV show's setting is no more or less relevant &/or defining than a film or novel's setting. Either all the cats should be discussed or none should. Jim Michael (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: would you like to add these other suburbia categories to the nomination? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No objection if somebody wants to, but I'm in the middle of a project and cannot take it on myself. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - I extend my renaming suggestion to all of them. That is, to change about to set in, thereby making the scope & definition clearer. I think it is in some cases defining. A Wikipedia article or even a dissertation with a title such as Suburbia in fiction could be written.
Whether they're kept, deleted or renamed, it's clear that the same should happen to all of them, because none of the arguments put forward here are medium-specific. Jim Michael (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as trivial and non-defining. If kept, support rename to "set in". Marcocapelle (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all This is a true mess. We need to stop these vague and not definable about categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as non-defining. --Just N. (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2020 (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:National Basketball Association over-the-air television broadcasters[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.
Delete another variation on the WP:PERFCAT, we ought not be categorizing tv stations by what their specific content like this. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2020 (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 Basketball Association flagship television stations[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.
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category; league hasn't existed since 1975–76. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:52, 16 December 2020 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Former television network affiliation is a non-defining category. List of former WB affiliates should be upmerged into Category:The WB; the station article can just have it removed. Similar Category:Former UPN affiliates and Category:Former WB affiliates were deleted in June. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not opposing deletion but I did want to point out that the nom seems confused here; this didn’t have anything to do with “former” affiliations because the category was created by me 16 years ago while the network still existed. It obviously doesn’t any more. That’s really all that needed to be said. postdlf (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was a good faith and perfectly valid creation at the time, as it was created at a time when the network did still exist — but nominator is correct that we don't categorize television stations for former network affiliations that they don't still hold today, so the category should probably have been cleaned out and deprecated sooner. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And it turns out W21BF wasn't even a WB affiliate that I could find, despite having the entire The News-Messenger to sort through! The article now only has the list page in it. I added the main The WB category to that page. This might be speediable now. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-defining; these change over time and for many a short stint as one or another network's affiliate is irrelevant. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining. --Just N. (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2020 (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 Football Association (1978–1983)[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.
I too would hope so, but I've nominated similarly straightforward ones before, only to get held up at speedy because the article was moved without discussion. Such an objection seems pedantic to me in a case like this, but some users do it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2020 (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:Education sites affected by shootings in the United States[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.
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF, being involved with a school shooting is not defining for any of these institutions. User:Namiba 01:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Listify then delete per nom. Notable and possibly defining, but better in a sourced list. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is a start of a list in article School shooting, perhaps this list can be expanded based on the current category content. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete over the long term this is not defining to the locations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Listify then delete per nom. Much better as a list, as thagt can provide some brief context. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Listify then delete per nom should be the best. --Just N. (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2020 (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:Homeland War Memorial Medal recipients[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.
According to the main article, over 400,000 of the Homeland War Memorial Medal have been issued which is remarkable since Croatia has just over 4 million total residents. The medal is a campaign medal for all Croatian participants in the Croatian War of Independence, a kind of award we've consistently found non-defining. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article although, given the potential size, that list may become unwieldy. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2020 (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:Recipients of the Royal Order of Cambodia[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.
When foreign leaders visit the royal family of Cambodia, or vice versa, the Royal Order of Cambodia is given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. Leopold II of Belgium, Hamengkubuwono VIII and Charles de Gaulle are not remotely defined by this award. (Per the article, there was intent to also issue this award locally but the only Cambodian people we have are a few royals and high ranking officials and, of those, 8 mention the award in passing—1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8—and two not at all—9, 10—so it's not defining for them either.) The recipients are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Background In the past, we've deleted dozens of similar categories for high ranking visitors and those nominations are listed right here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2020 (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.
