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_April_7

April 7

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Concepts by language

Propose deleting Category:Concepts by language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The cat has no description, but looking into its contents I gather it is intended for concepts named by non-English words. If this is so, then it must be deleted, because the language of the name of the concept is not a defining characteristic of a concept. Heck, 90% of concepts are in Greek or Latin :-) --Altenmann >talk 04:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and all the subcategories should be deleted too. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Electronics competitions

Propose splitting Category:Electronics competitions to Category:Competitions and Category:Technology events

Nominator's rationale: underpopulated category ^SMason_Garrison 03:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging into Category:Competitions. It is a long stretch to call its single item, LG Mobile World Cup, a competition in texting "Technology event". Is it were so, car racing or hackathons are way more technologic. --Altenmann >talk 04:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Competitions only, per Altenmann. It is a bit of a stretch to call it a technology event. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates in Ontario provincial election categories

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary duplication of the word Ontario. It is already obvious that Ontario-specific parties would be the ones contesting Ontario provincial elections. RedBlueGreen93 03:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. We have the name of the party and the name of an event. And not at all obvious. The change may inadvertently suggest to look up whether Green Party (Austria) took part in these elections (an absurd example, of course, to make a point). --Altenmann >talk 04:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we did not categorize candidates as such? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Argentine tropical physicians

Propose merging Category:Argentine tropical physicians to Category:Tropical physicians

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry, also merge with Category:Argentine physicians.

Also propose merging:

Category:1672 ships

Propose merging Category:1672 ships to Category:1670s ships

Nominator's rationale: Per notice on category, consensus within Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships states that prior to 1740, ships should be categorized by decade. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably also merge to Category:1672 beginnings. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works set in prison

Propose deleting Category:Works set in prison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Forms a category loop with Category:Fiction set in prison, and contains no articles. All the other subcategories are already in the other category. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Fiction set in X" categories normally only contain "Works set in X" and Fictional elements in X (mostly characters). This case is no exception to that. I tend to think that the "Fiction set in" category layer is redundant, rather than the "Works set in" layer. The works and fictional elements can be linked to each other in the header of the category page, just like songs and albums. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the parent category. There is narrative non-fiction set in prison(s), and deleting this would result in removing those works from the category tree. This also includes any future works that are created which is highly likely. Further I note that Category:Documentary films about the penal system (which is non-fiction) is part of Category:Films set in prison so really the Medium by setting tree is better suited to the "works by setting" structure because the medium cats by setting do not inherently sort out fiction from non-fiction. The whole Fiction by setting category structure is badly conceived and should probably be deprecated. If a deletion happens it should be the fiction category that is deleted after being merged to this one.4meter4 (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just tagged Category:Fiction set in prison (for merging to Category:Works set in prison). Essentially a reverse merge. If someone would like to relist this : ) - jc37 18:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge and purge As noted above, "Works" is the broader cat. And I'm looking at the "fiction" cat, and it's filled with films and songs, etc., so UpMerging would be appropriate. It also has characters, which aren't settings nor are they fictional works that are set anywhere. And for that matter, it also has fictional settings, which shouldn't be here either. In other words, these are fictional elements, not the works of fiction themselves. See also: Category:Fictional elements by work. And while we do not have Category:Fictional characters by work, we do have: Category:Fictional locations by work. What we don't have: Category:Fictional characters by fictional work setting. Nor do we have: Category:Fictional places by fictional work setting. Sounds like too many intersections for categorizing. - jc37 18:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03 and 4meter4: thoughts? it's lio! | talk | work 13:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose applying this to every work-by-setting category, given previous discussion of this idea. Probably once this is more widespread I will also create a Category:History books by setting category to cover all the ones about the 20th century, etc. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reverse merge as suggested by jc37?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 07:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A plain reverse merge does not work (yet?), because subcategories Category:Fictional prisons, Category:Fictional prison officials and Category:Fictional prisoners and detainees clearly do not belong there. It is also somewhat questionable for the other subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I supported purging. Those categories do not belong in either category. They are not works of fiction that are set somewhere (the inclusion criteria of the cats). - jc37 19:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support reverse merge and purge per Jc37 as an addendum to my earlier comment. This is the only workable path.4meter4 (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37 and 4meter4: but what do we do with the three (or all?) subcategories that are supposed to be purged? They belong together somehow, don't they? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair question. The follow-up question is whether we should have a category of "Fictional elements associated with a topic". That's a pretty large can of worms to open.
Looking at the individual cats:
- Category:Prison healthcare in fiction can be deleted. It's some redirects of characters and an episode of a TV show.
- Category:Fictional prisoners and detainees should be deleted. We talk about "defining", but along with that is a sense of "weight". how defining is the event to the character or the history of the character? For example, most criminals in a storyline where the hero "wins" go to jail. And on the converse, when a villain captures a hero or their associates they are also imprisoned. The Perils of Pauline comes immediately to mind. And then there are situations besides imprisonment due to court ruling, there's prisoner's of war, as well as victims of various kinds of kidnapping. And this is a long-standing trope in soap operas - often as an explanation why a new actor shows up as a brother, cousin, niece, etc. This is a broad category that really isn't useful for navigation. Besides, we already have Category:Fictional criminals, and its subcat Category:Fictional criminals by crime, which more clearly cover these characters. And if no consensus to delete, they are already in Category:Crime fiction characters as well.
- Category:Fictional prison officials is a "by occupation" cat, and Category:Fictional prisons is a location cat, and both can be see-also linked to in the cat description, as noted in Wikipedia:Categorization#Subcategorization.
So each is resolvable. - jc37 08:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I would propose putting this discussion on hold until the respective subcategories are deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Nominated the two suggested for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 27 so we can make progress toward resolving this. -- Beland (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The two categories were deleted (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 27#Category:Prison healthcare in fiction and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 27#Category:Fictional prisoners and detainees). What does that mean for these two categories?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As it currently stands, I do not see a reason to merge either way. Both the "in fiction" and the "works" category are populated properly with the sort of content that you would expect there. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]