WP:CFD/T

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies for the official rules of this page, and how to do cleanup.

Deletion of a category may mean that the articles and images in it are directly put in its parent category, or that another subdivision of the parent category is made. If they are already members of more suitable categories, it may also mean that they become a member of one category less.

How to use this page

Know if the category you are looking at needs deleting (or to be created). If it is a "red link" and has no articles or subcategories, then it is already deleted (more likely, it was never really created in the first place), and does not need to be listed here.
Read and understand Wikipedia:Categorization before using this page. Nominate categories that violate policies here, or are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant/need to be merged, not NPOV, small without potential for growth, or are generally bad ideas. (See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Manual of Style.)
Please read the Wikipedia:Categorization of people policy if nominating or voting on a people-related category.
Unless the category to be deleted is non-controversial – vandalism or a duplicate, for example – please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision.
Add {{cfd}} to the category page for deletion. (If you are recommending that the category be renamed, you may also add a note giving the suggested new name.) This will add a message to it, and also put the page you are nominating into Category:Categories for deletion. It's important to do this to help alert people who are watching or browsing the category.
1. Alternately, use the rename template like this: {{cfr|newname}}
2. If you are concerned with a stub category, make sure to inform the WikiProject Stub sorting
Add new deletion candidates under the appropriate day near the top of this page.
1. Alternatively, if the category is a candidate for speedy renaming (see Wikipedia:Category renaming), add it to the speedy category at the bottom.
Make sure you add a colon (:) in the link to the category being listed, like [[:Category:Foo]]. This makes the category link a hard link which can be seen on the page (and avoids putting this page into the category you are nominating).
Sign any listing or vote you make by typing ~~~~ after your text.
Link both categories to delete and categories to merge into. Failure to do this will delay consideration of your suggestion.

Special notes

Some categories may be listed in Category:Categories for deletion but accidently not listed here.

Discussion for Today

This page is transcluded from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025_January_23

January 23

NEW NOMINATIONS

British families needing geographical disambiguation

Propose renaming Category:Lloyd family of Birmingham to Category:Lloyd family (Birmingham)

Nominator's rationale: We've recently renamed any US state subcategories of Category:American families by state or territory that need disambiguation by state to put the state in parentheses at the end. These are the only British categories that fall outside this rubric (there are plenty with "England" or other places in parentheses). Seems like following that US precedent would be good. A couple of these have articles that use this format, such as Eliot family (South England) and Lloyd family (Birmingham). Mike Selinker (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sinclair Broadcast Group

Propose renaming Category:Sinclair Broadcast Group to Category:Sinclair, Inc.

Nominator's rationale: Corporate name; "Sinclair Broadcast Group" is just a subsidiary Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to Sinclair Broadcast Group it is the trade name (i.e. common name) rather than a subsidiary. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Olivetti S.p.A.

Propose renaming Category:Olivetti S.p.A. to Category:Olivetti

Nominator's rationale: like the main article Olivetti InterComMan (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly include a disambiguator after all, e.g. Category:Olivetti (company) in order to avoid that people with surname Olivetti are added. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this discussion should also be done for the page then. InterComMan (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily. When people are adding content to the article they must see the article. That is different with categories, one can add articles to a category without seeing the category page. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Add a disambiguator?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century deputy heads of government of Liechtenstein

Propose splitting Category:20th-century deputy heads of government of Liechtenstein to Category:20th-century government ministers of Liechtenstein and Category:Deputy prime ministers of Liechtenstein
Propose splitting Category:21st-century Liechtenstein government councillors to Category:21st-century Liechtenstein politicians and Category:Government ministers of Liechtenstein

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge for now. There's no need to diffuse the parent category to this degree. ^SMason_Garrison 00:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I disagree. Government ministers are a very notable role within Liechtenstein and should have their own century categories. There is also enough people with this role (page created or not) to warrant it's existence. Deputy heads of government, while technically a government minister, is also an entirely different role. TheBritinator (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say anything about notability? I said that there's no need to diffuse this category by century. We don't keep categories around just because the pages might exist. ^SMason_Garrison 00:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I disagree. There is more than enough people to warrant it being split by century. It being split this way also makes for much simpler navigation. TheBritinator (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I based my decision making for these categories similar to that of Category:20th-century vice presidents of the United States, for example. Why is this acceptable while mine is not? They serve the same purpose. TheBritinator (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Otherstuffexists isn't a helpful argument. Why does there need to be 3 layers of politicians intersecting by century? ^SMason_Garrison 23:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the argument I was making. I don't believe you have given a extensive rationale, so I am asking for clarification. TheBritinator (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't believe you have given a extensive rationale" what level of rational do you need here? You are making a comparison to a much larger more developed category that covers more than 2 centuries. I've asked you to explain why we need this intersection, and thus far you've only pointed to other categories needing it. Not this one. ^SMason_Garrison 01:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A good amount of these people are only notable for one role. As such, the intersection is ideal to make the navigation flow well with Category:21st-century Liechtenstein politicians, for example. Otherwise it will make it so they are not as easily found. My comparison is valid as it does in fact serve the same role, is that enough of an explanation? TheBritinator (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Splitting by century does not seem to be particularly useful here, in part because they largely overlap. Many politicians were active in both the 20th and the 21st century. Place Clichy (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them being active before has no correlation to these categories. Wikipedia:Categorizing articles about people states that categories should be added to people for what they are notable for. TheBritinator (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, are they not above all notable for being deputy prime minister, or government minister, resp.? Place Clichy (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In different centuries, yes. TheBritinator (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Extinctions since 1500

Propose merging Category:Extinctions since 1500 to Category:Holocene extinctions

Nominator's rationale: merge, the year 1500 is an arbitrary cutoff. If there is no opposition I will add the subcategories to the nomination for renaming from "since 1500" to "Holocene". Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 1500 may be arbitrary, but it is the date used by the International Union for Conservation of Nature to track extinct species (they do not include species known to have gone extinct prior to 1500). 1500 is used because it's a round number near the start of the Age of Discovery, when (European) naturalists would have been able document species before they went extinct, and it represents a date after which human influence played a major role in all subsequent extinctions (there are extinctions prior to that date where humans played a major role, and there are likely some extinction after that date where.

I would not be strongly opposed to renaming the category to Category:Recent extinctions, which follows List of recently extinct fishes, List of recently extinct mammals and several other sublists in the entries at Lists of extinct species. However, I do feel that would just obfuscate the fact that 1500 is exactly the date chosen for an extinction to be considered "recent".

Contemporaneous documentation is what distinguishes prehistory from history. There is a whole category tree for Category:Prehistoric life; it is under Category:Extinct taxa, and categorization between the prehistoric/extinct categories is pretty messy (many prehistoric organisms are in extinct categories). But I think "recent extinctions in which humans played a major role" is something that is worthy of categories as is "prehistoric extinctions that occurred before humans evolved" (while recognizing that there is a grey area where humans may have played a role in some prehistoric extinctions once they had evolved (but there are also many extinctions during the Holocene where humans didn't play a major role)). Plantdrew (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Plantdrew's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle. Without being a subject-matter expert, to Plantdrew's point, it seems that the IUCN definition is covered by Category:IUCN Red List extinct species, which makes this category redundant if true. Fits into WP:OCMISC / (borderline) WP:ARBITRARYCAT. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Aidan721's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]