Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All old discussions

This is a list of all open CfD discussions more than seven days old. It is maintained by a bot.

August 19

Category:NASCAR by year

Propose merging Category:NASCAR by year to Category:NASCAR seasons

Nominator's rationale: As Category:NASCAR seasons is described as 'This category contains articles on individual years in NASCAR.' I suggest to merge these categories accordingly. Robby (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merging, support placing Category:NASCAR by year into Category:NASCAR seasons and update the description of Category:NASCAR seasons to reflect the fact that it contains NASCAR seasons (rather than NASCAR years). Category:NASCAR seasons is a fairly large category, so I am not sure how this would help navigation. Additionally, the year categories are already in the decade categories, which are already in Category:NASCAR seasons (for instance, Category:2015 in NASCAR is in Category:2010s in NASCAR is in Category:NASCAR seasons). Therefore, merging would violate WP:DIFFUSE. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 19:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia utility templates

[edit]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedia utility templates to Category:Wikipedia templates by task

Nominator's rationale: I propose to upmerge to Category:Wikipedia templates by task, because the word "utility" doesn't mean anything specific. The description doesn't help either:

Templates in this category are used in articles, portals, templates, and other pages to help create and format those pages.
If you do not immediately find what you are looking for in here, try the subcategories.

Dumping everything into Category:Wikipedia templates by task will help subcategorizing the templates and the subcategories, once more of them are visible in the same category. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any history to suggest that templates being put directly into the by task category will get subcategorized through regular maintenance instead of just removing the by task category? Does the description at Category:Wikipedia templates by task need to be updated to indicate that templates should only be subcategorized instead of removed from that category before making this move? Van Isaac, GHTV^cont_WpWS 18:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Category:Sidebar templates by topic (9) together with Category:Sidebar templates (7) around four years ago used to have hundreds of templates directly in them. Partly, because of the weird naming until Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 27#Category:"Part of a series on" sidebar templates. The subcategorization by me started around the time of this discussion. A couple hundreds of subcategories were created, e.g. approximately 168 in these 500 edits.

Similarly, several thousand templates used to be in Category:Userboxes (837). There, several participants of the WikiProject Userboxes worked on it after the invitation (see also one, two, three, four, five). It was brought down to just the meta-templates (like {{Userbox}}), but then started climbing again. Nowadays, only Catfurball is working on it, as far as I know, so the counter is back up to eight hundred. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, I've already started subcategorizing Category:Wikipedia utility templates (284), starting with Repetition templates and HTML single tag templates/Wikipedia XHTML tag-replacing templates. —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the rationale: in terms of assumed purpose, Category:Wikipedia utility templates is indistinguishable from Category:Wikipedia templates, as all templates are utilities,^[a] and all templates are expected to have some utility.^[b] —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_28#Category:Wikipedia_formatting_and_function_templates should have gone in the other direction, i.e. merging utility to formatting and function, but there was a similar complaint about the word "function". I can't support the current nomination as it stands, because (i) the target should remain a container category, (ii) some of the templates held directly in "utility templates" currently have no other parent, and (iii) the usefulness of making a temporary incorrect merge looks marginal to me. I suggest splitting to multiple targets: Category:Wikipedia templates by task (for the subcats), Category:Wikipedia formatting templates (currently a longstanding redirect), and more specific categories – new ones if needed – for other functions. The other "function and formatting" subcats should follow likewise – either formatting templates or something else. – Fayenatic London 10:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fayenatic london, thank you for your detailed reply. Maybe Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_28#Category:Wikipedia_formatting_and_function_templates should have gone in the other direction – oh, I haven't realized that "formatting and function" category is gone, this flew under my radar. I don't like the name "formatting and function" at all as well. Any template that has non-zero amount of parameters does some formatting to them.^[c] The word "function" is completely useless in a category name, as others have pointed out.
  For your points (i), (ii), and (iii) – the potential outcome doesn't bother me as it seems to bother you, because having useless category names, which can't be consistently used, bothers me more. In the trade-off I prefer a big pile of templates to sift through over several piles, especially if people start to disagree about the exact purposes of the piles. For me it seems easier to see patterns emerge in one big category, at least this was my experience in subcategorizing per topic – sidebars and userboxes as mentioned above, and also navboxes in more recent years.^[d] —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  As the person who started Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 28#Category:Wikipedia formatting and function templates, I like FL's suggestion. Support that. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 19:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ if the word is understood in senses #2 and #7 on Wiktionary – 2. Something that is useful. and 7. (computing) A software program designed to perform a single task or a small range of tasks, often to help manage and tune computer hardware, an operating system or application software.
^ sense #1, 1. The state or condition of being useful; usefulness.
^ Side note: templates in Character-substitution templates don't do any formatting, so it shouldn't be a subcategory of Text-specific formatting and function templates, but I haven't gotten around to this part of the category tree yet.
^ P.S. During this discussion and discussions around Template tracking by task I am also starting to think that Wikipedia templates by style isn't serving a good purpose, because it's a mix of templates by shape ("box", "bar", "message box", "table") and templates by location ("header", "sidebar", "footer").

August 17

Category:Children of Christian VII of Denmark

[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Children of Christian VII of Denmark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per the same arguments for the previously deleted categories of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 1#Category:Children of Thutmose II, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 1#Category:Children of Louis XIII of France, and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 1#Category:Children of George VI, which is Wikipedia:SMALLCAT, as the subject of the article didn't have any more children, so there's no opportunity for growth.98.228.137.44 (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the two articles are already directly interlinked. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note: Page was not tagged until now. Please wait until 27 August before closing. – Fayenatic London 16:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Discotek Media

[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Discotek Media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non-WP:DEFINING. US company distributing Japanese content for American market, no hand in the production for these entries. --wooden superman 10:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We will have to apply this to other categories such as Geneon USA and Sentai Filmworks if we go though with this. NeoGeoPocketRobo (talk) 15:59, 4 August 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) 01:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nominator suggested the fact that Discotek has "no hand in the production for these entries" as a reason for deletion, but is that actually accurate? They are giving some titles their first ever releases in English, this includes having English-language dubs created (although this is not mentioned in the article currently). Also, as pointed out above, this affects many other categories, including Category:Funimation and Category:Crunchyroll. Xfansd (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then we have to consider whether a category such as Category:Films with English-language soundtracks produced by Discotek Media or Category:TV series with English-language soundtracks produced by Discotek Media etc are WP:DEFINING. I maintain they are not. And yes, the same rules would apply to the other examples you mention. --wooden superman 08:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak rename to Category:Anime licensed by Discotek Media per nominator and Xfansd. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 04:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's still inappropriate, as a license is not WP:DEFINING. --wooden superman 08:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence that this is defining (and I cannot find any myself, though admittedly it was a very cursory search). House Blaster (talk • he/they) 19:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia files of no use beyond Wikipedia

[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia files of no use beyond Wikipedia to Category:Wikipedia files of no use beyond the English Wikipedia

Nominator's rationale: Better reflect what this category is for: Files useful on other language Wikipedias should still be moved to Commons (and thus do not belong in this category, which indicates that the file should not be moved to Commons). House Blaster (talk · he/they) 01:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - I agree with the renaming proposed by HouseBlaster because the criteria given for inclusion in the category is "Files in this category should not be moved to Wikimedia Commons because they are only of specific use within the English Wikipedia." (That is a different reason than the one given by proposer.) NOTE: Templates {{esoteric file}} and {{userspace file}} add files to this category so they must be dealt with too, if the category is renamed.--FeralOink (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I would have omitted "the", but I see that it is used in just over half the mentions of the topic in the article English Wikipedia. – Fayenatic London 20:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] the word is understood in senses #2 and #7 on Wiktionary – 2. Something that is useful. and 7. (computing) A software program designed to perform a single task or a small range of tasks, often to help manage and tune computer hardware, an operating system or application software.

[2] sense #1, 1. The state or condition of being useful; usefulness.

[3] Side note: templates in Character-substitution templates don't do any formatting, so it shouldn't be a subcategory of Text-specific formatting and function templates, but I haven't gotten around to this part of the category tree yet.

[4] P.S. During this discussion and discussions around Template tracking by task I am also starting to think that Wikipedia templates by style isn't serving a good purpose, because it's a mix of templates by shape ("box", "bar", "message box", "table") and templates by location ("header", "sidebar", "footer").

[a]

[b]

[c]

[d]