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_February_21

February 21

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Presidential travels of Donald Trump

Propose renaming Category:Presidential travels of Donald Trump to Category:Presidential visits of Donald Trump

Nominator's rationale: I think that this category needs to be renamed to match the parent United States presidential visits, and possibly purged. ^SMason_Garrison 03:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alt rename to Category:Lists of presidential trips made by Donald Trump ("trip" per article titles) and purge everything that is not a list. Adding articles about summits to categories of all individual participants is overcategorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The two other presidential subcategories of Category:United States presidential visits should follow the same decision made by this category. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did some searching. I think we're just using whatever terms someone decided to use one day. I found this, and this, which suggests that the word we probably should be using is travel. Or this, and this, which suggests the root word should be visit. Or this and this and this, which uses the word trip. Or this, which uses visits and trips. I think we should lean towards whatever the US state department calls them ("Presidential visits abroad", per this), but curious as to what others think. - jc37 21:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that too. The more important point is about restricting this to lists. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. If we do that , it would then be something like: Category:Lists of presidential visits abroad by Donald Trump. - jc37 06:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on jc37's suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sports plays

Propose renaming Category:Sports plays to Category:Sports incidents

Nominator's rationale: This category does not contain Plays (theatrical dramas) but notable incidents in games of sport, and seems to be a North American usage. The subcats Category:Historic baseball plays and National Football League plays may be appropriate as local WP:ENGVAR, but this parent should use a name that will be understood more widely. – Fayenatic London 11:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if someone has a better target name than "incidents", then the American football subcats using "incidents" should be added to the nomination. – Fayenatic London 11:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. It is not even certain that it is a case of ENGVAR: none of the articles in the baseball subcat has "play" in the title. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is what they're called in North America. See List of nicknamed Major League Baseball games and plays. Also, some of the articles in the baseball category use the word in their opening sentence, e.g. Joe Carter's 1993 World Series home run, Kirk Gibson's 1988 World Series home run, Bill Buckner's 1986 World Series error. And no baseball fan mistakes it for a theatrical production. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, now that I think of it, what about football set plays? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Split into Category:Sports plays and Category:Sports incidents. Plays involve the players during the game, incidents mostly involve spectators and referees/umpires, e.g. Jeffrey Maier incident. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on splitting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deputy governors of Nigeria

Propose merging Category:Deputy governors of Nigeria to Category:State deputy governors of Nigeria

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary duplicate of the target category. This should be merged such that it redirects to the target as well, I guess that is the status-quo. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge or merge per nom. I suppose that "state" is redundant. Probably "in" is better than "of". I will tag the target too. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle I think "of" is better because, for consistency's sake, we have for example Category:Federal ministers of Nigeria and every single subcat has an "of" before Nigeria and not an "in". Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- With federal ministers, "of" is appropriate, because they are ministers of the whole country. In contrast, deputy (state) governors are the official of a state, not of the whole country. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment about "of" vs. "in"? Thoughts on the direction of the merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Burn survivors

Propose deleting Category:Burn survivors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination per Special:GoToComment/c-Jc37-20250221034400-HouseBlaster-20250221032900. Pinging @Jc37: to make a substantive nomination and @Marcocapelle and Smasongarrison: for their thoughts. This follows Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 8#Category:Fictional burn survivors. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Being a burn survivor is defining under EGRS. I see the previous CFD as being indifferent between fiction about burn survivors and fictional burn survivors. I think it's a reasonable question to consider, but I think it falls under WP:EGRSD ^SMason_Garrison 04:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a defining characteristic of quite a few articles and of the subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's actually not, per wikt:burn: "A physical injury caused by heat, cold, electricity, radiation or caustic chemicals." What types of burns are we talking about? Chemical burns? Oil burns? Friction burns? steam burns? freeze burns? burns from explosions? gunpowder burns? radiation burns? And then are they first, second, or third degree burns? If kept, it needs a clear rename. - jc37 05:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts in early years

Propose merging Category:Conflicts in 107 BC (1) to Category:100s BC conflicts and Category:107 BC
Propose merging Category:Conflicts in 680 (1) to Category:680s conflicts and Category:680
Propose merging Category:Conflicts in 893 (1) to Category:890s conflicts and Category:893
Propose merging Category:Conflicts in 963 (1) to Category:960s conflicts and Category:963
Propose merging Category:Conflicts in 964 (1) to Category:960s conflicts and Category:964
Propose merging Category:Conflicts in 965 (1) to Category:960s conflicts and Category:965
Propose merging Category:Conflicts in 966 (1) to Category:960s conflicts and Category:966
Propose merging Category:Conflicts in 967 (2) to Category:960s conflicts and Category:967
Propose merging Category:Conflicts in 990 (1) to Category:990s conflicts and Category:990

Nominator's rationale: Not useful for navigation. The category tree is not fully established until the year 1000. Merge to the decade-level per WP:NARROW/WP:OCYEAR. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Object. I don't see the benefit in reducing the level of detail here. More conflicts exist on other Wikipedias, at least for the 900s. The 107, 680 and 893 look a bit lonely but still, there is lot of history for the first millenium too. Pointless proposal. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Polish–Veletian War is the only article in the 963-966 categories and 1 of 2 in 967. That is in no way useful for navigation. Categorizing by decade is more than sufficient for the 1st millennium and before. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, this merely makes it very difficult to navigate to related articles. Note that the whole 10th century contains less than 200 entries so diffusion by decade rather than by year makes perfect sense. Even not diffusing the century at all would be no problem. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]