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: delete as now empty. – Fayenatic London 09:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Snakes by taxonomic synonyms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

• Category:Pythonidae by taxonomic synonyms

Nominator's rationale: These categories are very unusual - e.g. (1) they consist almost entirely of redirects (the few other pages (Petscan) are a mix of articles, SIAs and dabs and are in appropriate other categories), but aren't named "Redirects ...", (2) they have "by" in their name, but aren't container categories, (3) no other type of animal/plant has such categories.

Note: Many of the redirects might be valid members of Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names of reptiles, but do not currently have the template that would put them in that category.

Note: I recently removed several pages from these categories (e.g. an article about wasps). DexDor ^(talk) 21:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment not sure what is gained by cobbling together all snake redirects. Many people's biographies have redirects from alternate spellings (see all the synonyms for Muammar Gaddafi), but a category of them all doesn't seem to aid people find an article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This CFD isn't proposing any cobbling together (it's about deleting some very unusual categories that are not like normal categories for redirects) and anyway categories for redirects often are large (e.g. Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names of insects has many thousands - readers are not expected to use such categories so that doesn't matter). And, redirects do not need to be categorized. DexDor ^(talk) 06:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - a problem is that Heleionomus (say) redirects to Python (genus), where the word does not occur. So I have no idea whether I can speak with authority about Heleionomus, or whether I am being led into error by a trickster. Oculi (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heleionomus is listed on the Python article; it's in the (collapsed) synonyms section of the taxobox; you need to uncollapse to see it. However, there are other redirects not listed in the respective articles. Lisalia_albertisi goes to Bothrochilus; the target should be Bothrochilus albertisii.Plantdrew (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you are recategorising them like this. Seems legit. – Fayenatic London 23:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete eventually, but wait until the members of the categories are placed in Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names of reptiles. These redirects basically haven't been touched since 2007. Some of them may need to be retargetted as lumping/splitting of species over the last 13 years will have affected what is considered a synonym of what. I'll work on categorizing as alternative scientific names and retargetting as necessary, but I'm not sure I'll finish before this CfD would normally close. Plantdrew (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rush (I've had these cats on a CFD to-do list for years). There are over 2000 redirects in these categories. DexDor ^(talk) 19:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete eventually -- These seem to be categories containing nothing but redirects apart from subcats of the same kind. Possibly they should be renamed to Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names of snakes; etc. My view is that categories of redirects are not useful categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categories like that are normally populated by a template òn the redirect pages (is there a bot that could convert them?). Having said that I wouldn't object to these categories being renamed/merged like that. DexDor ^(talk) 19:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I agree that there doesn't appear to be much point in reader-side categorization of redirects - especially as we also have talk page categories such as Category:Redirect-Class amphibian and reptile articles. DexDor ^(talk) 19:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A number of these categories have been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment all but Category:Crotalinae by taxonomic synonyms and Category:Crotalinae by taxonomic synonyms, and the parents of these two now empty. Those are the largest categories (with about half the article originally in this category tree). It should take me another week or so to empty them as well. Plantdrew (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Update all of these are now empty and can be deleted. Redirects formerly in these categories are all now categorized by redirect category templates. Plantdrew (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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: Delete Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Eurasian Americans
• Nominator's rationale We are supposed to categorize by ethnicity, not by race. This is a category by race. It is grouping its direct entries as people of mixed racial origin, not of some mixed ethnic origin. This is a clear violation of the do not categorize by race guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Eurasia is not considered to be a continent. We have Category:American people of Asian descent and Category:American people of European descent and that should be sufficient. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, per Marcocapelle Captainllama (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably the most likely candidate to be put in here in some ways is Bruce Lee. However do Americans think of Bruce Lee as mixed race, or do they think of him as the qunitessential Chinese origin actor (even though he was born in San Francisco, he was raised in Hong Kong)? I just hate the term. I would actually argue as either a racial or ethnic designation Asian hides more than it reveals. For one thing, a technical reading of the mix here would put people of mixed Arab and European ancestry like Terri Hatcher in this category. I see no way to exclude such, and that will make this category a true collector of all sorts of interesting things. There is a reason we do not categorize by race.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or upmerge) -- Eurasian refers to a person of mixed race. It was used of half-castes in British India as an alternative to Anglo-Indian, which could also mean a British person in India. The standard format is Booians of Fooian descent. It is possible that the American categories were not altered to that format when all the rest were some years ago. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Boa Python films to Category:Films about snakes

Nominator's rationale: Overly-specific category using non-standard syntax. Think we can merge this into an existing category easily enough. DonIago (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• merge per nom Captainllama (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

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: rename to Category:Criminals from Tasmania. – Fayenatic London 09:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Tasmanian criminals to Category:Persons who have committed crimes in Tasmania

Nominator's rationale: Category name is in conflict with category description.

The name indicates the nationality of subjects, whereas the description disregards the nationality of subjects. There may be a better (shorter) name than my proposed target. Captainllama (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest -- Category:Criminals convicted in Tasmania or Category:Criminals convicted by Tasmania . Libel considerations mean that we cannot have categories for those merely accused of crime. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a country subdivision as the place of a crime is a non-defining characteristic of a criminal. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Renaming the category this way is not necessarily an improvement and would put it out of synch with all other states/territories within Category:Prisoners and detainees of Australia by jurisdiction where the phrasing "Category:Persons who have committed crimes in XX" is not used. Better would be to just delete it (thank you for pointing out the irregularity here) and moving the 3 pages included to other related categories. Eg. Bryant also appears in 2 other subcategories here (so just delete); Avery could be moved to Prisoners and detainees of Tasmania; and Howlett to Prisoners and detainees of Tasmania as well. Thanks. JabberJaw (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We have plenty of categories of "Criminals from somewhere" but as I understand it this is about the origin of the criminal, not the location of the crime. Rathfelder (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: we've had Criminals from Melbourne, Criminals from New South Wales and Criminals from Western Australia since 2012 or earlier. In fact the latter has been moved twice, see CFD 2006 and CFD 2011. Should we relist and add those three siblings to the nomination? – Fayenatic London 23:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait, the problem is not in the category itself, but in the weird category description. At least 3 of the 4 people in this category are regular Tasmanian people. We can simply remove the description and keep the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there is no problem with the name of the category per se, just the contradiction between the name and the description. I brought it here to discuss but the Twinkle procedure apparently required a suggested rename. I attempted a name to fit the description but in view of "the place of a crime is a non-defining characteristic of a criminal" it is the description which needs to be ditched, and in view of CFD 2011 the category should be renamed "Criminals from Tasmania", per "Category:Criminals from Western Australia" etc. So:

• Revised proposal Category:Tasmanian criminals to Criminals from Tasmania and delete the incongruous description, no replacement being necessary. Captainllama (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support revised proposal, WP:C2C per Category:People from Tasmania. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.