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_27

January 27

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Canadian Dames Commander of the Order of the British Empire

Propose renaming Category:Canadian Dames Commander of the Order of the British Empire to Category:Canadian dames

Speedy Cfd discussion

Category:Canadian Dames Commander of the Order of the British Empire to Category:Canadian dames – C2C: to match sister categories in Category:Canadian recipients of British titles and Category:Dames by country. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnis Scientia: do you mean rename to Category:Canadian dames Commander of the Order of the British Empire? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle. No. Since there are only two Canadian women with articles who are dames, making distinction between which order is pointless. Since Canada does not have a system of titles like this, there aren't likely to be more dames. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Omnis Scientia: ok, but I don't think that is speediable. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There are, as far as I can see, only two dames due to Canada renouncing titles long ago. So no need to do so by order. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle from speedy Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Serving Brothers of the Order of St John

Propose renaming Category:Serving Brothers of the Order of St John to Category:Members and Serving Brothers and Sisters of the Order of St John

Nominator's rationale: The current title only covers males and not females. In addition, this rank has relatively recently (about 2017, it would appear) been renamed from Serving Brother/Sister to Member. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just Category:Members of the Order of St John to keep it simple? Marcocapelle (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rangpur

Propose merging Category:Rangpur to Category:Rangpur, Bangladesh

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category created today in good faith by new editor. The name Rangpur is ambiguous, so the existing category's title is correct, since all articles currently in the new category appear to be for the city in Bangladesh. The redirected category may need to be disambiguated for Category:Rangpur District and Category:Rangpur Division. Wikishovel (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and disambiguate per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and disambiguate per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Temples (LDS Church) by location

Propose merging Category:Temples (LDS Church) by location to Category:Temples (LDS Church)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary sub-level containing only two container subcategories and a list. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ballot measures

Propose merging Category:Ballot measures to Category:Referendums

Nominator's rationale: Ballot measure has been a redirect to referendum since 2021. Merge and keep as a redirect per WP:OVERLAPCAT. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge, and please consult prior discussions, such as: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_5#Category:Referendums, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_30#Category:Referenda_in_the_United_States. Short version is: At least in some U.S. states, a referendum is only one of three types of ballot measure. Not every ballot measure can be properly described as a referendum. It's possible there is a way to improve the structure, but the reason this change (or something similar) has not been made in the past is that the issue is more complex than it appears on the surface. I believe that the terms are used in significantly different ways in the U.S. and the U.K., and perhaps differently elsewhere in the world as well. Any change should be informed by a holistic understanding of these differences, or we'll just keep going round and round on it, and confuse our readers in the process. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly fine that the US category is called "ballot measures", per WP:ENGVAR. But the nominated category is not a US category, it is a global category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This decision would impact a large number of articles that pertain to many legal systems around the world. I would suggest an approach more like (1) doing some research on the use of the terms in different places, (2) consider several naming schemes and list the pros and cons, (3) put together a proposal, and (4) post to a more widely trafficked venue like Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). If you're open to such an approach, I am willing to help out, and we could do some preliminary work in user: or wikiproject: space. I think it would be valuable to come up with a solution that is compatible with the language used in various jurisdictions. But if not, I'm going to oppose any simple change that puts hundreds or thousands of articles into categories that are in direct contradiction to the formal status of the propositions they concern. - Pete Forsyth (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you misread my reply. I am totally fine to change the name of any countries' category from referendum to ballot measure if that is the term they use in that country. But this category is not for individual countries, it is a global category. And we shouldn't have a fork at global level because of WP:ENGVAR. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course a fork at the global level is a problem. As I said, I agree that this is an issue worth resolving; but it needs to be done with a more holistic view. My disagreement is with the present proposal, not with the notion that there's a problem in need of a solution, and not merely with the US-specific category tree. So I don't think there is any misunderstanding. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Peteforsyth: if you agree with the fact that there is a problem but you keep keep opposing the proposal then please come up with an alternative proposal. Personally I don't see any alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Virtual reality pioneers

Propose deleting Category:Virtual reality pioneers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: From Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_19#Virtual_reality_->_Extended_reality:

Please renominate "Virtual reality pioneers" separately. The term is generally only used in retrospect and I don't think it's controversial to say VR is still developing in a way that it's hard for us to say who is and isn't a pioneer from the present vantage point.
— User:Axem Titanium 23:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Experts on North Korea

Propose renaming Category:Experts on North Korea to Category:Scholars of North Korea

Nominator's rationale: Most of the people in this category aren't described as experts. How are we defining who is an expert? There are a few politicians who I would not describe as experts in here (and neither does their article), but the only defining categorization here is those who study it as their discipline. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Experts on terrorism

Propose renaming Category:Experts on terrorism to Category:Scholars of terrorism

Nominator's rationale: Experts is a weird thing to categorize by as well as a POV judgement. Who are we defining as an expert? Does Osama Bin Laden count as an "expert on terrorism"? There are a few politicians in here who made some legislation on terrorism, but I dispute that this makes them experts, and they are not described as such. The subcat of "terrorism theorists" should be merged into this, as it is basically doing the same thing. No, what these people are actually notable for is being scholars of the topic. All other categories like this (except two, which should also be changed) either use academics or scholars. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]