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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Discussion for Today[edit]

This page is transcluded from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024_July_7

July 7[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Pioneers of Israel[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Pioneers of Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This seems like it could plausibly renamed, refocused, or deleted. Obviously it's a coherent group, but is it an encyclopedic one as it stands? Remsense诉 03:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read the Encyclopedia of the Founders and Builders of Israel by David Tidhar. This category is a gold mine of information. It will help numerous people interested in studying the development of the state of Israel. These are the pioneers. Dag21902190 (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the issue is that "pioneer" is generally a term of adulation. I think at a bare minimum, the name of the category needs to be changed in order to conform with our policy concerning neutral point of view. Remsense诉 03:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dag21902190 Another issue is you seem to be treating this category page like it's an article, which is not correct. Remsense诉 04:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are meant to have a summary explaining what is in the category. Dag21902190 (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a one-sentence summary usually. Remsense诉 04:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer has a definition, and just like the pioneers of America, these are the pioneers of Israel. It is not a term of adulation. It is a fact. Dag21902190 (talk) 04:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you cleanly define it in one sentence for me? Categories are meant to be fairly self-evident: if you need to write an article to fully flesh out your definition, it might not be a good category. It seems like you want to write a list article, which would need to stand up to our policies about verifiability, notability and neutral point of view. Your present prose does not, it is very much adulatory.Remsense 诉 04:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Pioneers” are people who are among the first to explore or settle what becomes a new country or area. For example, a colonist/colonizer. Just because you interpret the term as adulation, doesn’t make it adulation. Best regards. I deleted the additional summary because of what you said. Dag21902190 (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you interpret the term as adulation, doesn’t make it adulation

Unfortunately that tends to be how language works, as we're talking about the connotations of language.

I don't quite understand your definition in any case, as none of the people in the category were among the first to explore or settle what is now Israel. Remsense诉 09:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what a colonizer is? What do we call the first Europeans to settle and develop America? Were they the first people to explore or settle America? Obviously they weren’t. You cannot take a long-used term, and pretend it can’t be applied to the very thing it defines. I hate to break it to you, but you sound like an anti-Israel shill. I understand if English isn’t your first language, but just because you interpret the word “pioneer” as adulation, doesn’t mean it should be changed. Dag21902190 (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Pioneers” are people who are among the first to explore or settle what becomes a new country or area.

None of the people in the category were among the first to explore or settle what is now Israel. Your definition doesn't work, is my point.

just because you interpret the word “pioneer” as adulation, doesn’t mean it should be changed.

Correct: it should be changed because it's not just me. As a verb, pioneer absolutely has distinctly positive connotations; some related, more neutral verbs are colonize, settle, construct, and establish. The interplanetary space probe was named Pioneer 6 and not Colonizer 6 or Establisher 6 for a reason, I'm afraid. Remsense诉 20:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s very clear that you don’t want the word pioneer being used because you don’t view the early settlers in a positive light. I will maintain, despite your attempt to bring in the naming of a satellite, that pioneer is the correct word to be used. American pioneers weren’t the first to settle America, yet they are defined as pioneers. All you have to do is search up the definition of pioneer on Google, and the first two examples of synonyms are “colonist” and “colonizer”. Your interpretation of the English language does not, and should not, mean you can redefine a word, because you view it as adulation. Dag21902190 (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American pioneers weren’t the first to settle America, yet they are defined as pioneers

There's been plenty of ink spilled about how "pioneer" is also wrong in an American context for exactly the same reason. Academic use sharply declined as a result.

I also shouldn't have to ask you not to accuse me of behaving in bad faith without a lick of evidence, as I've given you no reason to assume my motives are anything but what I've already said they are: Wikipedia has content policies. Remsense诉 20:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, redundant as we already have Category:Jews from Ottoman Palestine and Category:Jews from Mandatory Palestine. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the pioneers aren’t in those categories. There is much missing, and this is a separate category for a reason. Dag21902190 (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked the first 8 articles and they are all in these categories. If they are not, just add them. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Why are you misleading people? That is just not true. What’s the real reason for you to want to delete my work? This is the only comprehensive list of its kind. To want to delete this is a spit in the face, and really nonsensical. It has taken hours of work, and is a treasure trove of pioneers. Dag21902190 (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You're not entitled to host your work on Wikipedia because you put a lot of work into it, unfortunately. We have content policies. Remsense诉 16:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That is extremely disingenuous, and anyone who reads this will see it the same way. Denying the benefits of a category like this is just blatant anti-Israel bias. Dag21902190 (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Dag21902190: you are misleading people by claiming that I am misleading people. See list below. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Now do me a favor and look at the other 200 people on the list. It is not exclusive to Ashkenazi Jews from Ottoman Palestine. To say so would be misleading. Care to explain why you are attacking this category so hard? Dag21902190 (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Case in point would be that 7 of the following 8 people on the list (which you purposely didn’t bring up; choosing to stop at the first 8) are not in the category “Ashkenazi Jews from Ottoman Palestine” because it doesn’t apply to them. Although they are still pioneers. What’a so hard to understand about that? This is a unique category, different any of the existing categories. Dag21902190 (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Plain nonsense, I have added the next articles too, see below. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You just combined three or four separate categories. How does that assist your argument? Dag21902190 (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can the scope be simply defined first, before we consider if the category should be retitled, merged, or deleted? I think an issue with the term "pioneer" here is that it can be unclear and may be applied to many individuals that aren't intended. Kingsif (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And more specifically, can we establish which Jews from Ottoman Palestine and Mandatory Palestine should not be regarded as pioneers? I don't think we can establish that, but let's see what the discussion brings us. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, I would figure that anyone who settled the land between the first Aliyah and the fifth Aliyah should be considered pioneers. However, I think they have to had stayed in the region, developing the budding country. What do you think? Dag21902190 (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- So it is going to duplicate Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine and Category:Immigrants to Mandatory Palestine. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up nomination see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_30#Category:Members_of_the_Fourth_Aliyah. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Everyone here needs to take a deep breath. This is Wikipedia. Accusing people of anti-XYZ bias or destroying hard work is unproductive and does nothing to strengthen your point. With that out of the way, there is clear consensus that this category needs to change. Whether that change is in the form of deletion or not is to be determined (hence relisting), but if it is kept we need a defined scoped and potentially a better name.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 05:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:12th-century Almohad caliphs[edit]

Propose merging Category:12th-century Almohad caliphs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Almohad caliphs, Category:12th-century caliphs, and Category:12th-century monarchs in Africa
Propose merging Category:13th-century Almohad caliphs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Almohad caliphs, Category:13th-century caliphs, and Category:13th-century monarchs in Africa

Nominator's rationale: Recommended by Nederlandse Leeuw (talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_11#Category:Government_of_the_Almohad_Caliphate:

Category:12th-century Almohad caliphs‎ (4 P) and Category:13th-century Almohad caliphs‎ (10 P) are probably best upmerged to Category:Almohad caliphs, and to Category:12th-century caliphs + Category:12th-century monarchs in Africa & Category:13th-century caliphs + Category:13th-century monarchs in Africa, respectively. A subdivision by century for a dynasty that lasted just under one century and a half tends not to aid navigation very much. But I suggest that for a follow-up.

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Triple merge per my reasoning above. Thanks LP! NLeeuw (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, the merge will result in 10 articles directly in Category:13th-century caliphs while they have something more specific in common. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 12:06, 29 June 2024 (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) 01:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Green Party of England and Wales donors[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Green Party of England and Wales donors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Donating to a political party is rarely if ever defining. There is only one article in the category. (t · c) buidhe 01:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:18th century in Mozambique[edit]

Propose merging Category:18th century in Mozambique to Category:18th century in Portuguese Mozambique

Nominator's rationale: downmerge, redundant category layer, there isn't any content here that doesn't fall under Portuguese Mozambique. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with it, but can we leave this as a redirect to resolve the template from breaking? Mason (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and reverse merge instead. What a mess Category:Years of the 20th century in Portuguese Mozambique is currently – half of the year subcats up to 1975 use "Portuguese" in the name, half don't. I prefer the solution at e.g. Category:20th century in Angola where everything is simply named "in Angola", but all years/decades/centuries up to 1975 are parented by Portuguese Empire. – Fayenatic London 21:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm surprised to see that Marcocapelle removed some content from Category:Portuguese Angola in 2021, e.g. Category:19th century in Angola, on the grounds that "category may also contain indigenous history".[1] IMHO that edit and any like it should be undone. But at least he still left that cat within Category:19th century in the Portuguese Empire. – Fayenatic London 21:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Fayenatic london: Portuguese Angola and Portuguese Mozambique started off as just some coastal settlements and only late in the 19th century they expanded to what is currently Angola and Mozambique. The most extreme example is Mbunda Kingdom which was conquered by the Portuguese no earlier than 1917. It is comparable to Category:19th century in India which we should not want to be a subcategory of Category:British India. I think India is in principle a good example of how things should be done, except Angola and Mozambique only have a fraction of the number of articles of India. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, I think I understand how you distinguish between those parents now. But I am not persuaded by the India hierarchy as a model rather than Angola. India also has sub-hierarchies for French, Dutch and Portuguese India. There is no such ambiguity between colonial powers for Mozambique.
    - I saw that you put Category:1924 in Mozambique into Portuguese Mozambique parent categories, and nominated it at Speedy. If these two layers are the way to go then presumably we should do likewise for all the Category:Years of the 20th century in Portuguese Mozambique not currently called "Portuguese". I suggest leaving redirects.
    - Ah. I've just found Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_5#Category:20th_century_in_Mozambique and 19th century just below it, which ended with consensus NOT to use "Portuguese". In those discussions you didn't !vote but questioned whether the "Portuguese" disambiguator was needed. Why should we go against that previous consensus and use "Portuguese" now? – Fayenatic London 21:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Fayenatic london: in my defense, I found the Indian tree only after the above discussion. But more importantly, I have no issue with calling 20th-century categories just "Mozambique" instead of "Portuguese Mozambique" because they geograhically coincide in the 20th century. In addition, I would propose merging all 19th-century (sub)categories and earlier to just Category:History of Portuguese Mozambique, Category:Establishments in Portuguese Mozambique and Category:Disestablishments in Portuguese Mozambique, and to centuries, decades and years in Africa. That is of course, assuming that articles about events in centuries, decades and years refer to Portuguese Mozambique (to be checked). So we would end up with main categories Portuguese Mozambique, 20th century in Mozambique and 21st century in Mozambique (with some overlap between Portuguese and 20th century). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I think it would be (barely) justifiable to retain Category:18th century in Mozambique to hold 18th-century Mozambican people (2 P), 18th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Mozambique (1 P) and Old Cathedral of Quelimane. I would likewise keep 19th century in Mozambique.
        
        But the rest of your proposal sounds right, as the other C16–C19 hierarchy contents are Fort São Miguel de Chicova, Fort São Caetano, Igreja Presbiteriana de Moçambique, Diocese of Lebombo, and redirects Captaincy of Sofala, Captaincy of Mozambique and Sofala, Captaincy-General of Mozambique and Rivers of Sofala, Province of Mozambique. The only other potential contents I found are Portuguese expedition to Sofala (1505), Siege of Mozambique (1607), Siege of Mozambique (1608).
        
        Please can we start by undoing your recent parameterising of years in Mozambique into "Portuguese"? [2] – Fayenatic London 09:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        
        OK, I see that my request and this whole discussion becomes moot because of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_3#16th_to_19th_century_in_(Portuguese)_Mozambique. I suggest that that CFD should be closed before this one. – Fayenatic London 09:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting pending Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 3#16th to 19th century in (Portuguese) Mozambique.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 01:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]