Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 5

This article will explore the topic of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 5 from different perspectives and approaches, with the aim of providing the reader with a deep and complete understanding of this topic that is so relevant today. Historical, cultural, social and scientific aspects related to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 5 will be addressed, in order to provide a comprehensive and holistic vision of its importance and impact in different areas. Through a detailed and rigorous analysis, we will seek to offer the reader a complete and updated vision of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 5, with the purpose of promoting a critical and enriching reflection on this topic and its impact on contemporary society.

< February 4
February 6 >

February 5

Category:Illinois Fighting Illini baseball venues

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT and consensus. User:Namiba 21:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Tagging User:Marcocapelle and User:Aidan721 as you !voted on the two previous similar discussions.--User:Namiba 18:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Introductions by decade

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: merge, only 1-3 articles by decade, this is not helpful for navigation. There is no second merge target because the articles are already in year categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ballot measures

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
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)
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      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)
      • 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)
        • 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)

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

  • @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)
    My proposal is above, I'm surprised you don't acknowledge it. I am not confident I have a broad enough command of the various issues to come up with a comprehensive solution myself, nor do I think you do. The path I suggest is the one I've seen work time and again to move past thorny issues on the wiki. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
    • That is not a proposal, it is just delaying the only possible solution for unclear reasons. You do not provide any argument why this category should not be merged, the only thing you say is that your knowledge about the topic falls short. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. To Peteforsyth's point, determining a naming scheme for categories is done at CFD, not the Village Pump. I find Marcocapelle's points about ENGVAR persuasive, and consulting dictionaries like Merriam-Webster (American dictionary), Cambridge (UK), and Google (sourced from Oxford, so UK) all give definitions which don't align with the "veto referendum" usage in the US. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, it could be done at CfD, but starting off with a proposal that will amount to expressing misinformation about a large chunk of a 300 million person country's electoral processes seems a poor structure for such a discussion. A !vote structure of "yes, no, or unilaterally create a detailed and potentially complex alternative" doesn't make much sense to me. The issues at hand impact a large number of categories and articles, which need to serve many legal/political systems and varying uses of language. My point is simply that more careful consideration should be taken, instead of making a sweeping change to solve one problem that creates another big problem. This proposal should be rejected in order to create space for consideration of a solution that does not create large new problems. (In case it's not clear, I don't fault Marcoapelle for making the proposal initially, of course their understanding of language usage is influenced by a different context than mine.) -Pete Forsyth (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants. There is consensus that (1) the target category already violates WP:PERFCAT; and (2) there is no compelling reason to further violate PERFCAT through the creation of non-defining subcategories. There was consensus that the target category (around 200 entries) is not large enough for diffusion. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: This is borderline WP:PERFCAT as it is, splitting by season definitely makes this more of a WP:PERFCAT issue. If we have to break this down by show, we should not be splitting by season also, whichever specific season they may or may not have appeared in is not WP:DEFINING. --woodensuperman 09:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment. I notice that a lot of other drag TV shows have been subjected to the same inappropriate split just a couple of weeks ago, we do not do this for other reality TV shows, no need to do this here. Once this is resolved, we need to apply the same logic to other shows in the Category:Reality drag competition contestants tree. --woodensuperman 09:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose as creator. A few points. It is quite common for references about the queens to not just refer to them as "RuPauls's Drag Race contestant Silky Nutmeg Ganache", but rather "RuPauls's Drag Race Season 11 contestant Silky Nutmeg Ganache". They represent diffusing* categories to a category with over 200 Queens in it and which allows for these subcats to become part of the cat for each season. The situation with RPDR is that unlike (say) "Who wants to be a millionaire?" or Survivor is that almost all queens in the shows, *as a result of the show* now meet notability criteria. (I honestly don't think we have any other tv show with that number of people who become notable *due* to the show.)Silky Nutmeg Ganache the remainder of her career is specifically identified by the characteristic of her category, as opposed to say the contestants on Celebrity Apprentice.*A few queens due to having to exit early were invited back for the next season.Naraht (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    This is still no justification to split by season. We already sometimes make an exception to WP:PERFCAT for reality TV series contestants, as we are doing here (although, personally I don't see why, when a lot of these people are famous for more than the one TV series these days, and I'd ideally like to upmerge all of these to Category:Reality drag competition contestants), but splitting by season is a step too far as per WP:COPDEF, the specific season is not the WP:DEFINING characteristic. Splitting this further actually hinders navigation, as you would need to know which season someone was a contestant in order to navigate between the queens. Peversely, it would actually make more sense to break down the navbox {{RuPaul's Drag Race}} by season, rather than the categories, as you would be able to view all the contestants at once. Also, 200 entries in a category isn't catastrophic, when you consider Category:21st-century American male actors has over 6,000 entries. --woodensuperman 14:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    While a few are now famous for one or more additional shows, as far as I can tell more than 80% went from not being notable on the day they were cast to being notable after the show was broadcast. And, as I said, since the references refer to them specifically by season, that fulfills " A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic". If you would like to suggest that the template be redone, I'd suggest *either* the Wikiproject or the template talk page, the Wikiproject is a bit more active. And I think the reason that it hasn't been done is the small season/season overlap mentioned above.Naraht (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. The season is not a defining characteristic. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I think these categories are helpful and reasonable given the number of entries in Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants and the presence of categories for individual seasons (Category:RuPaul's Drag Race season 7, for example). Most contestants and episodes of the series are notable so some organization helps here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per request on my talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Merge per nom. This is also how contestants on similar reality shows are categorized and I do not see a reason to differentiate here.--User:Namiba 20:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
    A note that it is the combination of number of contestants, the number that become notable (admittedly within the Drag community and Entertainment) *because* of the show and the season being viewed defining characteristic, that these were created. I haven't been able to find any shows really equivalent for example America's got talent or American Idol don't have the focused coverage that RPDR does.Naraht (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
    The size of the category is not an issue, 200 entries is relatively small. Please see this from a Wikipedia-wide standpoint rather than a Wikipedia:WikiProject Drag Race standpoint. This is not a Drag Race wiki. --woodensuperman 11:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
    No question, the sources here are better. (I don't edit the Fandom wiki, but I do check it to see if *sometimes* they have more info on upcoming country franchises) What this discussion boils down to is whether (as an example) Silky Nutmeg Ganache has "Season 11 of RuPaul's Drag Race contestant" as a defining characteristic or whether only "RuPaul's Drag Race contestant" is a defining characteristic. I'd be happy to work off Google Ngrams (If it can handle the combination of terms) to see if Silky Nutmeg Ganache with "Drag Race" and without "Season 11" outnumbers "Silky Nutmeg Ganache" "Drag Race" and "Season 11".Naraht (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
    The main thing to consider is WP:PERFCAT. It could be argued that being in Star Trek is a defining role for William Shatner. However, because of our guidelines we do not allow categorisation of performers by performance. For some reason, we make an exception to this when it comes to reality television, only because it is unlikely that these people are known for anything else. Whether we should even be making that exception is an argument for another day, but conceivably, you could have an actor known for only one role, and we wouldn't make an exception there. What we definitely should not be doing is taking that exception a step further and splitting further the category we have already made an exception for. --woodensuperman 16:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep. The parent category has actually become large enough that diffusion is warranted. The fact that we don't do this for some other reality shows really shouldn't have anything to do with it — Drag Race is the type of show where just being on the season at all almost always translates into a sustained career that gets the queen over our inclusion standards on her post-show career activity regardless of how well she does or doesn't do in the show, meaning that nearly everybody who's ever competed on it at all has an article, while no other TV reality show can say the same.
    American Idol can't guarantee wikiworthy notability to everybody who ever appears on it, Survivor can't guarantee wikiworthy notability to everybody who ever appears on it, America's Got Talent can't guarantee wikiworthy notability to everybody who ever appears on it, The Amazing Race can't guarantee wikiworthy notability to everybody who ever appears on it, and on and so forth: Drag Race is relatively unique in the way nearly everybody who competes on it at all sooner or later becomes notable enough for a Wikipedia article regardless of their success or failure in the competition — seriously, Drag Race is the only reality show I've ever heard of where even the porkchop (first out, for those not familiar with the insider lingo) of the season still sashays away as a star — with the result that we have far, far more articles about the roster of past Drag Race competitors than we do for almost any other reality show, which is why it has to be considered on its own merits rather than applying a one-size-fits-all rule just because it's a TV reality show. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
    Agree ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
    If, as you assert, "just being on the season at all almost always translates into a sustained career", then there is no justification for the exception to WP:PERFCAT that we make for other reality TV shows. We don't do it for other performers, and we're increasingly seeing some of these queens appearing in more than one iteration of the series. They should all be upmerged to Category:Reality drag competition contestants, or at the very least Category:Drag Race (franchise) contestants. --woodensuperman 15:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
    There was a deliberate decision *not* to have categories for the 'All Star' and 'vs. the World' contestants because of the reason you just said and to *just* have those that represented Distinguishing Characteristics, so I don't see where you are coming from in that argument. So even if a queen was on RuPaul's Drag Race 6, RuPaul's Drag Race: All Stars 3 and Drag Race UK vs. the world, there is only one Season Category for them, RuPaul's Drag Race 6. And the number of queens who have been on multiple seasons of the "base" show of a country is small (and largely due to injury or COVID) and has *not* significantly increased. (six(?) out of over 400 queens across the franchises)Naraht (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
    We have articles about maybe two or three per cent at most of everybody who's ever competed on an Idol or Got Talent franchise, while we have articles about at least 95 per cent of everybody who's ever competed on a Drag Race franchise. So how precisely would that not be different? Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not quite sure of the point you're making, but there are 250+ entries in Category:America's Got Talent contestants for example, and no-one's thinking about splitting that down by season (and neither should they). --woodensuperman 16:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
    The point I'm making would be obvious to a blind dog, but here it is again in different words: there's a massive difference between what percentage of past Drag Race contestants have Wikipedia articles (very nearly 100 per cent) and what percentage of past AGT contestants have articles (considerably less than 10 per cent), because the shows themselves actually differ in how much power they have to make their contestants notable enough for Wikipedia articles.
    A Drag Race contestant is basically guaranteed permanent long-term notability regardless of whether they win or lose, just from the fact of being on the show itself, while an AGT contestant might go on to achieve enough later on that they meet our notability criteria for those other things, but has absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that just being on AGT automatically gets them over the notability hump all by itself. Drag Race is a show where even the losers become stars (Miss Vaaaaaanjie), while AGT is a show where frequently even the winners become forgotten.
    The shows don't have the same level of star-making power as each other, which is precisely why the individual AGT season that a person appeared in isn't equivalent to the individual Drag Race season a person appeared in. Every single person who competed in Season 5 of Drag Race has their own biographical article, without a single exception at all, while the overwhelming majority of people who competed in Season 5 of AGT do not have their own biographical articles — so an RPDR5 category is a complete set of all RPDR5 contestants, whereas an AGT5 category could only be a partial set of some AGT5 contestants, and an AGT5 category absolutely would exist if we did have a complete set of articles about every AGT5 contestant. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
    But a merged category is a complete set of contestants across the seasons. Arguably that's more useful for navigation, as you don't need the foreknowledge of which season someone appeared in. --woodensuperman 18:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
    The funny thing about categories is that one doesn't actually need any "foreknowledge" to use them, because any reader can easily click on the category link to find out things they didn't already know. Foreknowledge is only necessary when it comes to the initial filing of articles in categories in the first place, and no foreknowledge is necessary to browse a category once it's already been populated by the holders of the foreknowledge. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
    If you want to read about season 5 queens, say, you can read the season 5 article. But as an index of all queens, the merged category is a better road map. --woodensuperman 20:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
    So should we have all films categorized together in one undifferentiated supercat, with no subclassifications for genre or production nationality or year of release, on the grounds that that's a "better road map" than subcategorizing them? Should we have all albums categorized together in one undifferentiated supercat, with no subclassifications for genre or artist nationality or year of release, on the grounds that that's a "better road map" than subcategorizing them? Why would one supercat of all Drag Race queens superior to subcategorizing them, when that's not how most other oversized umbrella categories are handled? Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
    200 entries is not a "supercat". It's a category that already goes against our guidelines WP:PERFCAT. It is already split further than it should be as we are categorising by performance. We should not be breaking this down even further. Also, note Category:21st-century American male actors if you're worried about the size. --woodensuperman 09:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Note to closing editor: Given that this has already been relisted twice, it seems likely that this will result in a "no consensus" close. In this event, given that the categories were split very recently and unilaterally by the "Drag Race" Wikiproject, surely a "no consensus" close should result in the status quo before the split, as this discussion has not demonstrated consensus to split in the first place. --woodensuperman 13:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
    I am going to note that this logic would entail deleting new articles after no consensus closes at AfD, which is not how most things work. Neutral on the rest of this proposal, but if there is no consensus it means no consensus for further action. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
    The logic used for articles and categories would be different. With articles, we are considering notability, whereas here we are making a change to categorization that was made by fans of a television show and has not been given consensus by the community. We should be sticking to the status quo in the event of no consensus to change. --woodensuperman 08:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lists of Rockstar Games characters

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Lists of video game characters. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Only contains one article. Already present in another subcategory of Category:Rockstar Games characters. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Eponymous categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. As always with mass nominations, there is no prejudice against renomination of individual categories for concerns particular to the nominated category. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
2389 categories
Nominator's rationale: Due to consensus of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_24#Category:Wikipedia_categories_named_after_mass_media_franchises, which raised concerns about this category system in general and offered no arguments that were really specific to the nominated one. 2389 categories in all! –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
@LaundryPizza03, please collapse the mass nominations so only the first couple are default displayed. I don't think that a consensus of two (three?) editors for a single category should automatically transfer to deleting 100+ categories—it would be nice to see you provide a more thorough rationale on this page. Aza24 (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
 Done –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
The hell are you talking about? 149.115.66.106 (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Hatting Myself
  • Delete All The primary WP:CATEGORY goal is to aid navigation while hidden WP:PROJCATS is for maintenance activities. These "named after" cats turn that on the head by having navigational categories and this inversion is only even possible because WP:HIDDENCATs are still visible on categories. This approach is not endorsed by WP:EPON. Reading through the !votes above, I don't see any policy/guideline reason for doing the opposite of our normal categorization, nor any compelling WP:IAR for why this helps the encyclopedia. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks to Gnangarra for linking to the discussion where I advocated for making these hidden project cats in the first place, back in 2012. Clearly, I'm not playing the long con here, but favoring deletion based on change I favored still seems distastesful. I'm going to step back and rethink this. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep all. I use these all the time, and the content of eponymous categories is often too diverse for them to fit anywhere else in the category tree. Just stop calling them maintenance categories if that's the problem. They have their own {{Eponymous category}} which should be enough. Uriahheep228 (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep all, these are hidden categories so there's little harm in having them. They're useful for programmers that make external tools working with Wikipedia's API, for example if you were to make a website listing American football competitions, it's very helpful to use Category:Wikipedia categories named after American football competitions to get a list of common names for football competitions that are guaranteed to be notable. This is different than just looking at Category:American football competitions because that includes articles like Bids to college bowl games which are related to football competitions, but are not actually a competition itself. --Habst (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Absolutely *Oppose, per User:Dimadick & RedBlueGreen93, Keep all. I see no reason to remove these categories, because they make it easier for readers to search and users to find information. On the contrary, I see significant and irreparable harm from removing so many useful categories. At the same time, it may be advisable to change their names.Yasnodark (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Procedural oppose per WP:TRAINWRECK. I'm not personally wedded to the idea that these are necessary, but since they are longstanding Wikipedia practice there could potentially be a massive fustercluck of unintended consequences if this many categories are just deleted en masse all at once.
    As one of the old guys who constitute the institutional memory around here, I'll grant that the original concept behind these hasn't held sway as the way that categories actually work now — the original idea was that Category:United Kingdom shouldn't be directly filed in Category:Countries in Europe, because the relational nature of categories technically "asserted" that every single thing in any subcategories of United Kingdom, such as Heathrow Airport, Gordon Ramsay Plane Food, Diocese of Newcastle or BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role, was also a country in Europe in its own right, so the argument was that Category:United Kingdom itself should be filed only in "Wikipedia categories named after..." categories, while the article about the United Kingdom was what belonged in Category:Countries in Europe. That's obviously not the way we actually handle categories in 2025, however: it wasn't a terribly convincing or majority-held argument even back in the day, but it's an argument whose proponents have clearly lost the battle today.
    However, even if that original concept isn't still applicable, some of these may well still serve other useful or important purposes even if some others don't — and simply deleting them en masse, without careful consideration and surgical precision, may well spawn a tsunami of unintended side effects. (For example, some of the eponymous categories may genuinely still not be in any "regular" categories at all, so that deleting these would leave stuff completely uncategorized.) So I'm more than willing to discuss them, and consider the arguments for or against them, in small and manageable batches that can be looked at carefully to avoid those unintended side effects — but not in a gigantic mass omnishambles like this. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose all: This would be wholesale destruction of an important structuring of Wikipedia categories for no good reason. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
    Oppose. I echo what others have said here that the deletion enmass isn't helpful, and will likely lead to big messes that will take ages to fix. SMasonGarrison 22:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Background/Comment The background from Bearcat and Gnangarra is helpful. Interpreting WP:EPON's encouragement to not go overboard with parent categories to mean that there can be no parent categories for eponymous cats is a stretch for me. From there I struggle with how adding the phrase "Wikipedia categories named after" serves as an amulet to make supposedly disallowed categories permissible.
    The larger problem is that so many eponymous categories were removed from their other parent categories when these ones were created which leaves a WP:WALL. It also inadvertently creates a fait accompli where we can't delete this entire tree without orphaning categories.
    Earlier conversations have bogged down covering this history and I'm not sure if we move past that, whether it's by revising WP:EPON or breaking this down into smaller noms. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  • User:Jc37, regarding your comment in the previous discussion which is the basis for this discussion (this diff), here's further info on this that you would welcome – Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 3#Category:Eponymous categories: This nomination isn't for Delete/Rename/Merge/etc. It's to suggest that this entire tree of categories named: Categories named after X be turned into hidden categories. This would help navigation for our readers, and yet keep this tree for what is apparently project-side work. Part of this may require finding someone with a bot. (Can cydebot do this? I seem to recall that he said he has a special page set aside for the bigger category changes.) - jc37 00:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Mark all as hidden - as nominator. - jc37 00:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC) – wbm1058 (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you very much for that link/reminder : )
    My recollection is that that was about standardizing the naming of the subcats (and making them hidden). Several people in that discussion said that they read through these categories, but if they explained why they did/ what the purpose of these cats are, then I missed it. So far, it just seems that what this does is group together any cat that WP:EPON applies to. Is there a purpose to this? For example, is there a bot that uses these cats for something?
    A quote from me in that discussion: "These categories have been nominated again and again for deletion, only to result in being informed that they serve a purpose to the project.". I'm still not sure what that purpose is. - jc37 15:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
    Ultimately it's probably just to avoid leaving the individual eponymous categories uncategorised. Since they are based on groupings of related topics and not characteristics of the member articles, eponymous categories often don't fit under the regular content category tree. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment. Looking at Category talk:Eponymous categories, I see that, over 14 years later, we're still trying to figure out what the hell is the point of this category? Looking at one of the two I created, it kind of makes sense to make it a subcategory of Category:Stock market indices since the articles in that category are about related topics, and not specific stock market indices. I agree we need to slow down here to control a potential runaway train. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: To add to the background that Gnangarra, Bearcat and RevelationDirect provided above, as much as I hope WP:EPON was better followed, there's so much inherent ambiguity there that it's pretty much impossible to put into actual practice, resulting in an inconsistent mess across the entire project. (It's impossible to guess what categories an eponymous category is currently placed in, and probably no agreement on which ones are appropriate.) To properly deal with the system, we'll have to start by overhauling WP:EPON to make things more clear-cut and implementable. An RfC would probably be warranted, but would need some extensive workshopping on the guideline talk page. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
    I'm trying to wrap my brain around what you (and others above) have said. From past comments, I was thinking this was a usage issue, but it sounds like it's more a philosophical issue.
    So let me ask: Is this basically about the difference between Wikipedia:Categorization#Topic_and_set_categories, and how some editors do (or did) think that such cats should (or should not) be subcategorised? - jc37 15:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
    I think you're onto something. If Category:Stock market indices were renamed to Category:Stock market index, that would free up Category:Wikipedia categories named after stock market indices to be renamed to Category:Stock market indices, resolving one of my two category creations that pinged me into this discussion. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
    If that is what is wanted/needed here, it would not be that difficult to merge Wikipedia:Categorization#Eponymous categories to Wikipedia:Categorization#Topic and set categories, if that would add clarity to the situation. Saying that a category is "eponymous", merely just says it's named after a topic, but saying it's a "set category", would seem to illustrate that there is a preferred usage. - jc37 16:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
    This might be overly simplistic, but I always thought eponymous categories were topic categories if they were singular and set categories if they were plural (Category:Opera vs Category:Operas in the example.)
    Merging, or at least cross-referencing, WP:EPON with WP:TOPICCAT/WP:SETCAT sounds like it would be helpful. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
  • I see we have an inactive database report Wikipedia:Database reports/Eponymous templates (e.g. {{Provinces of Iran}} and Provinces of Iran), but no Wikipedia:Database reports/Eponymous categories, which I think would be helpful. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Moral support, procedural oppose. Based on an arbitrary sampling, the whole Category:Eponymous categories container does seem pointless and duplicative. But a 2400-member nomination should be subject to a wider discussion, and an impact assessment should be prepared to determine what's going to break if we remove all these. Folly Mox (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Dimadick and QH.
Inpops (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep All these categories because WP:NOT PAPER and they are used and needed all the time! IZAK (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose and Keep, of course. Example of lots of work being put into trying to delete things which are obvious keeps. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose and encourage further discussion, despite previous attempts to come up with a solution regarding eponymous categories. If we're going to allow Category:Barack Obama, Category:The Beatles, etc., what is the best way to handle/capture/track/organize/categorize such use? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • delete all but 1) I never understood their use case. Some people indicated that they do use them often but it was neveral clarified as to why, In particular, we do not categorize eponymous articles so why do we care about categories? 2) If some topic pages or categories can only be found through (hidden) eponymous categories, then they are effectively parentless to general readers and need to be fixed, regardless of whether eponymous categories are retained or deleted. Dpleibovitz (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Surnames from ornamental names

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to delete after thorough discussion; rename to Category:Ornamental surnames as nominated (as no objections have been raised to such). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: These surnames, i.e., such as Rosenkrantz or Goldfarb are ornamental surnames themselves, not "derived" from anything but their fancy meaning. --Altenmann >talk 01:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is another "things named after other things". We can't do 1:1 relationships in categories (unless we start doing a myriad of 2-member cats - which would presumably be overcat). - jc37 21:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete? I am not seeing objections to renaming if kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Comments: As I see the "del" votes are based on a major misunderstanding of the purpose of this category:
  • Rename per nomination. As PARAKANYAA and Altenmann have explained, this is a category of names, not the people who have them, and thus SHAREDNAME does not apply. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, it is a category of names, which are named after other things:
    What things we ask? <vague wave> Oh just "things". But aren't nearly all names named after "things"? Isn't it just a matter of translating into various languages? Yes, but these are just the few that we decided to subjectively add because we think they are Ornamental surnames. Oh, who determined that? We did, using original research....
    I believe this is well-meant, but this should be a List, if anything, as I noted above, to explain the inclusion of each item. See also WP:BEFORECAT and WP:CLN#Disadvantages of a category. - jc37 15:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
    I strongly suggest you to read "ornamental surname" before jumping to conclusions.It is not "well meant" ,but well-defined by experts in onomastics. Who determined that? Experts, of course. For example, Dictionary of American Surnames as quoted by ancestry.com. Such as Rosenblum or Blumberg. It lists nearly all European names (immigrants, you know), and I am adding citations from it whenever I have spare time from doing other useless things in Wikipedia nobody else but wikignomes cares about. --Altenmann >talk 18:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
    I did read Surname#Ornamental_surnames, and have re-read it again.
    Your first link merely states it's an artificially created name. It requires a bit of WP:SYNTH to go from that, to saying it meets the criteria of an "ornamental surname". The second merely states it was named after a location.
    I don't see anything related to a coat of arms (or ornamental surnames, for that matter), at all.
    If I'm missing something, please let me know. - jc37 18:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
    You are missing what I wrote already: no SYNTH needed: there are sources about origins of specific surnames, to be cited. My first link says "Jewish (Ashkenazic): artificial name composed of German Rosen- ‘rose’ + Blume ‘flower’." "Artificial" is synonymous to "ornamental". The second link says "Jewish (Ashkenazic): artificial compound meaning ‘flower hill’ ("; by the was not at all named after a location). I would prefer the term "Artificial", but whoever created the category was first there :-)--Altenmann >talk 18:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
    I see that you've updated the article (your edits), to suggest now that "ornamental" is synonymous with "artificial".
    The problem is this: All ornamental surnames may be artifical, but not all artificial surnames are ornamental.
    But you are suggesting that they are.
    But, per the rest of that article, all surnames were artificially created at one point or other, not just ornamental ones.
    So therefore, a source claiming that a surname was artificially created, does not, by itself, say that the surname is an ornamental one.
    So again, what do you think I am missing here? - jc37 18:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
    OK. I looked into the history of the category, it was created by a banned user. I have no idea who wrote the section Ornamental surname. All ornamental surnames may be artifical, but not all artificial surnames are ornamental on the surface, the def of OrnSur in wp looks the same as in the refs I added about ArtSur. My refs are solid. But older refs in Ornamental surname are shaky. I will review the article . Dictionary of American Family Names (2003) uses the term "ornamental surname" all over the book, but I do not see it defined there. Whatever happens, the category may be i na need of cleanup or rename, but befinitely not delete. --Altenmann >talk 19:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
    Final OK: I foun the source that says the terms are synonyms: the intro to Dict of Am Fam Names says "various terms have been used in onomastic studies to designate these names: arbitrary, ornamental or artificisl' The author further argues why the first two names are not good and suggests to stick to "artificial". I will do more seaarch, and if "artificial" is indeed a preferred term, and not a separateopinion of the Dictionary, I will update wp article and suggest moving to Category:Artificial surnames. Thank you for your skepticism; that's how we progress here. We all know that Wikipedia is not a valid reference, but in this case I still put too much trust in it. I will sit back for a bit and will try to fix the mess in "Ornamental surname". --Altenmann >talk 20:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
    I will ping everybody when I make some sense with the terminology. --Altenmann >talk 20:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you, that was informative.
    In looking that over, it sounds like they were seeing "artificial surnames" as a broader (more broadly inclusive), term.
    Which makes me wonder: At what point is Category:Artificial surnames merely duplicating Category:Surnames? Where's the demarcation line? - jc37 20:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
    The way I see it, "Artificial" means the names were invented in modern times with no apparent system, unlike the major categories of toponymic/topographic, ethnonymic, patronymic/matronymic, occupational surnames, surnames from nicknames and surnames that are evolve from given names. There also "unclassifiable" surnames, i.e., untraceable origin. Also there are some unique categories, such as Finnissh srunames of Virtanen type and Laine type. These superficially may be classed as "artificial", but they are classes in temselves, being intentionally created thusly is a standard way for a European country where surprizingly there were no surnames until modern times (at least I see no sources that call them "artificial"), similar to the situation with the Jews. . --Altenmann >talk 20:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
    Except that many of those are also "artificially-created" names.
    But that aside, categories need clear inclusion criteria. I think you'll agree that that criteria isn't very clear. It almost borders on WP:OCMISC - i.e. what's leftover when we define the rest of those.
    This really sounds like something that would be better as a list, so that all of what you are talking about can be explained for each entry. - jc37 14:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
    need clear inclusion criteria - sure thing. And the inclusion criteria are crystal clear: if an RS calls it thusly, then Wikipedia clearly knows it, clear? --Altenmann >talk 10:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
    • That is not crystal clear at all. Sources may randomly call one name artificial, another name not, while the sort of name is the same. It simply would mean that it is not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
      Sorry, this is not the business of a Wikipedian to judge sources (unless it is some babynames.com). As for being "nondefining characteristic", some bearers of artificial surname would say it in Odessa, "don't make me to laugh". I happen to start writing articles about Israeli films and was stunned with their wildly disparate categorization. An article may be tagged "1960s drama films", "Israeli comedy drama films", "Romantic comedy films" "1962 psychological drama films", and what's not. Film critics do have fantasy :-). --Altenmann >talk 07:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
  • There are other considerations whe it comes to creating categories, such as Wikipedia:Overcategorization, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:PRECISION, among other things. Plus there's WP:CLN, and the disadvantages of a Category instead of a List. So no, that's not clear at all.
    I do have another curious issue though. When I do a google search for "artificial surnames", all - and I mean pages of results - are all related only to Jewish surnames. Can you explain why that is? - jc37 21:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
    Why are you asking? Are you an anti-Semite?:-) <Sorry, could not help; a running Jewish double-joke. To appease you, here is another one, of an opposite tone: "You’re not Jewish, by any chance? It’s not exactly that you look Jewish, it's just that you are asking such intelligent questions".> Yes, I can. By the way, you may also google for "ornamental surname" as well as for "arbitrary surname". A longer answer write I must into "Surname" when I gather my will, wit, and want into one point in space and time. --Altenmann >talk 22:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
    I'll accept you were joking and move on : )
    That aside, I don't think you answered the question. I wasn't being facetious. I'm wondering why the only usage that is coming up for the term was primarily for Jewish surnames. This brings right back to the question of what should be in the category, and whether this might be better as a list so these things can be explained. - jc37 22:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
    <sigh> OK, brief answer: the discussed term was introduced by a researcher in Jewish surnames. Researchers in other surnames coined other terms I mentioned. I cited a book that says these terms are essentially for the same type of surnames. And this "brings us right back" to my answer: this is a large real-life category (one of several) of the origin of surnames, not just a short list of peculiar surnames. And "what should be" is decided by our regular Wikipedia rules: WP:RS, and Dictionary of American Surnames is but one of the RS which classifies dozens if not more, surnames thusly. (I am sorry for being repetitive, but it looks like nobody reads this thread in full, so I have to give the same answer to each participant personally.) --Altenmann >talk 22:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
    And everything you keep saying, suggests that this falls under Disadvantages_of_a_category and Advantages_of_a_list. Not everything is appropriate to be categorised - even if there are multiple references (with varied results). - jc37 22:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
    These two links are applicable to each and every category and this vague guideline cannot be a basis for deletion of a category: its "nutsell" says Although they each have their own advantages and disadvantages, each method complements the others, and a bit below: these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other, so if you prefer a list, nobody prevents you from creating one. You say: "Not everything is appropriate to be categorised", right. But this is not an argument for the particular deletion. --Altenmann >talk 01:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
    Sure it is. We have here a category in which - per your comments - even the experts do not agree on naming. In which we can't be sure of the ever-varying definition of usage for what "ornamental" or "artificial" means, because, again - per you - the sources do not agree. This is a textbook case of where a list should be used instead of a category. Because each of the entries need clear explanation of what they are and why it should be appropriate to group them together. So yes, not everything is appropriate to catgorise. This isn't a case of IDON'TLIKEIT, it's a case of following the problems in unifying under a single name from the sources. And if we unify under "artifical surnames", that would seem to apply to all (or nearly all) surnames, and so would be duplicative of Category:Surnames. Nothing that you have said has indicated that these problems are surmountable. So we're still at: "Delete, listify if wanted". I'm happy to engage with you and be pursuaded differently. I have been, all along. But I just have not seen us get past those two big problems (not that there aren't other issues (like Marcocapelle's concerns about WP:OC#DEFINING, above), but these two are big enough that it isn't worth looking at the rest unless/until these are resolved.) - jc37 07:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
    Experts disagree on the naming (happens all the time) but not about the existence of the major category. --Altenmann >talk 10:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment I am thoroughly baffled that Category:Novels first published in serial form is "defining", but a specific way of forming surnames is not. --Altenmann >talk 13:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Ornamental Name". Nordic Names. Archived from the original on 27 July 2021. Retrieved 27 July 2021.
  2. ^ "The History of Last Names". Archived from the original on 27 July 2021. Retrieved 27 July 2021.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Willy Wonka

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Category:Willy Wonka characters/Category:Charlie and the Chocolate Factory characters was speedily renamed during the discussion. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Seemingly a case of WP:OVERLAPCAT. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.