Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion
(Redirected from Wikipedia:CFDALL)
Shortcuts
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Speedy renaming and merging edit

If the category and desired change do not match one of the criteria mentioned in C2, do not list it here. Instead, list it in the main CFD section.

If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.

Use the following format on a new line at the beginning of the list: 

* [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

(The four ~ will sign and datestamp the entry automatically.)
If the current name should be redirected rather than deleted, use: 

* REDIRECT [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

To note that human action is required, e.g. updating a template that populates the category, use: 

* NO BOTS [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

Remember to tag the category page with: {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 19:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 215 open requests (refresh).

Current requests edit

Please add new requests at the top of the list, preferably with a link to the parent category (in case of C2C) or relevant article (in case of C2D).

Opposed requests edit

On hold pending other discussion edit

  • None currently

Moved to full discussion edit

PLEASE NOTE: I have moved all of the following Categories here pending adequate confirmation of their eligibility under C2C. I made a serious effort to look for that, but was unable to find such confirmation. There is a massive jumbled welter of Categories in this realm, with no prevailing pattern that I can discern. Anomalous+0 (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now to all by ethnic or national origin nominations. 46.229.243.187 (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your opposition needs to have a reason. Mason (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The existing wording sounds more natural and is easier to understand. 46.229.243.187 (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A first attempt to resolve this is here at full discussion:
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_30#Category:English_people_by_ethnic_or_national_origin
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_9#Category:Swedish_politicians_by_ethnic_or_national_origin
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_27#British_people_by_descent
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_6#Actors_by_ethnicity
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_7#People_from_British_Overseas_Territories_and_Crown_Dependencies_by_ethnic_or_national_origin
Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except in the United States, the "by descent" format seems to be standard everywhere. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current discussions edit

Shortcut

May 7 edit

NEW NOMINATIONS edit

Category:Communism in the Arab world edit

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT WP:OVERLAPCAT. All children are already in parents Category:Communism in Asia and Category:Communism in Asia (part of the Category:Political movements by continent tree), as well as Category:Communism by country). On the other hand, Category:Arab communists is in the Category:People by ethnicity and political orientation tree, which has been inappropriately intersected with the trees above. NLeeuw (talk) 06:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Added Conservatism and Monarchism which are very similar situations. Other siblings could be nominated as well, but I suggest we do them as follow-ups in order to not make this nomination overly complicated. NLeeuw (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources treat the Arab world as a body, including in political movements. See The Communist Movement in the Arab World by Tareq Y. Ismael.--User:Namiba 18:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is not the case that all of the articles are in Category:Communism in Asia. The category also includes articles on communism in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Sudan and Somalia, none of which is in Asia. There are clear commonalities among all of these, distinguishing them from other communists in both Asia and Africa, and this is an appropriate category. RolandR (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabi people by occupation edit

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCEGRS, trivial intersection between occupation and ethnicity. There is mostly no need to merge, the articles are already in a parallel Indian or Pakistani category if applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a notable intersection [1][2]--User:Namiba 14:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is mainly about Indian descent, as the second link also illustrates. Hardly any of these articles is about someone of Pakistani descent, while a clear majority of Punjabi are Pakistanis. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Quebec Kebs edit

Nominator's rationale: Defunct minor league team containing no articles except the team article, the arena it temporarily inhabited, and the coaches category. User:Namiba 14:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct National Basketball League of Canada teams edit

Nominator's rationale: The NBLC itself is defunct. User:Namiba 14:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championships edit

Nominator's rationale: Harmonizing subcategory names in the Category:IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championship. Please see also the previous discussion here. Maiō T. (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The nomenclature aligns with the official name of the tournament as used by the IIHF. Spitzmauskc (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The naming is unnecessarily redundant. The proposal is equivalent to "1999 International Ice Hockey Federation Ice Hockey Women's World Championships". What logical reason is there to say ice hockey twice? Seems like the parent category should be discussed, not the children. Flibirigit (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The IIHF uses "IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championship" on all official documentation. I suspect the inclusion of 'Ice Hockey' has its roots in the period during which the IIHF also organized the IIHF Inline Hockey World Championship. While I don’t disagree that the name may read as redundant, I do see value in maintaining the official name and feel the inclusion of 'Ice Hockey' is a helpful indicator for readers who may not be familiar with the IIHF acronym. Spitzmauskc (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've tagged all of the categories and notified the creators.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rātana politicians edit

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. No need to merge, the subcategory is already in the tree of the three potential targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we certain there are no Rātana people who stood but were not elected? I would prefer to keep ‘politicians’, but delete ‘MPs’. If that is not preferred, then yes, I would still delete ‘politicians’. — HTGS (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there seems to be a lot of confusion in this category (and in articles relating to Rātana as a political force). Some of these people are adherents of the Rātana faith who became MPs, others of them were MPs for the Rātana Party or (after affiliation with the Labour Party) MPs officially endorsed by the Rātana church. Soraya Peke-Mason, for example, is a Rātana, but not an official Rātana-endorsed MP. If that can be cleared up I'd support Marcocapelle's second suggestion (merging MPs into politicians). Grutness...wha? 14:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Belgian Ministers of Defence edit

Nominator's rationale: rename, "of country" seems to be the standard format. I am not sure about the capitalization. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paintings of the Sacrifice of Isaac edit

Nominator's rationale: merge, only very few articles in Category:Paintings of Isaac and it is not part of any other tree because Category:Sacrifice of Isaac or Category:Binding of Isaac does not exist. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian people of Tajik descent edit

Nominator's rationale: 1 article category Gjs238 (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly part of a detailed and comprehensive category tree. No purpose whatsoever served by deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete, the category does not contain any biography. The topic article is already in Category:Asian diaspora in Canada where it properly belongs. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British people of Tajik descent edit

Nominator's rationale: 1 article category Gjs238 (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caucasus Jews edit

Nominator's rationale: There are two Jewish ethnic groups originating from the Caucasus region: Mountain Jews and Georgian Jews. The term Caucasus Jews currently redirects to "Mountain Jews." These two groups are culturally distinct; they speak different languages and have many differences in customs and culture. However, other Jewish communities have also resided and continue to reside in the Caucasus region, including primarily Ashkenazi Jews, as well as some Sephardic and Bukharan Jews. Therefore, this category does not make sense. Currently, this category encompasses Jews from three modern countries, yet "Caucasus Jews" redirects to "Mountain Jews." Note: I have just separated the entries for category:Jews from Georgia (country) and category:Georgian Jews. Aldij (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People from British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies by ethnic or national origin edit

Nominator's rationale:rename for consistency with the subcategories which are aĺl "by descent", as well as for consistency with Category:British people by descent at the top of the tree. This is follow-up after this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of West Asian descent edit

Nominator's rationale: This category tree is not needed. Western Asia is often conflated with the Middle East. Western Asia includes the South Caucasus but does not include Egypt (outside the Sinai Peninsula) and Turkish Thrace (geographically in Southeast Europe). Now "West Asian descent" categories merely serve as containers for "Middle East descent" and "Caucasus descent." However, these classifications are not entirely accurate. The term "People of Middle East descent" includes individuals from the African part of Egypt and Turkish Thrace in Europe, while "People of Caucasus descent" encompasses individuals from the North Caucasus in Europe. Aldij (talk) 09:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Asian parent categories. I agree that West Asia and Middle East are largely overlapping and we do not need both. However, it does not make sense to remove the content from the Asian tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chinese retired emperors edit

Nominator's rationale: More clear, consistent with related categories. Remsense诉 06:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Preferably nominate the Japanese and Vietnamese sibling categories too. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Union Theological Seminary (New York City) edit

Nominator's rationale: In line with the main article about the subject, which was recently the subject of a requested move discussion that determined that the New York seminary is the primary topic for the title. Graham (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify what you mean? As discussed in the RM discussion, of the five other articles listed on that disambiguation page:
  • Three of them use a name prefixed with a city and we were unable to find any references to any of them as simply "Union Theological Seminary". (As partial title matches, they're probably borderline cases as to whether they should even be listed in the body of the disambiguation page rather than the see also section.)
  • One of them (Union Presbyterian Seminary) was historically known as "Union Theological Seminary" but changed their name a number of years ago in part to distinguish themselves from the much better-known New York seminary. (By way of comparison, the fact that the University of Portland was historically known as "Columbia University" rightly doesn't stop the title Category:Columbia University from being used for the New York institution.)
  • One of them (Union Theological Seminary (Philippines)) is so obscure that, despite apparently being an English-language institution, there was minimal information available online about them. IACOBVS suggested that they may have actually been named after the New York seminary.
This would seem to be a clear-cut case of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, especially when we take into account the fact that the New York seminary is recognized internationally as a major intellectual centre of mainline Protestantism and liberal theology and its article is viewed 10 times more often than Union Presbyterian Seminary and 26 times more often than Union Theological Seminary (Philippines).
Additionally, why would we use a different title for the article versus the category? Graham (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: User talk:Station1, User talk:IACOBVS, User talk:Walrasiad, User talk:Robertsky. Reason: Participated in the RM discussion. Graham (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Talk:Union Theological Seminary, WT:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, WT:WikiProject Higher education, WT:WikiProject New York (state), WT:WikiProject New York City, WT:WikiProject Reformed Christianity. Graham (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 6 edit

Category:Sámi educators edit

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It mirrors the same well-formed categories for non-Sámi educators. I have added one more category to this and at least two more categories could easily be created to add to this one based on the structure of the category for non-Sámi educators. -Yupik (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight lean oppose. I have mixed feelings because it's a pretty common parent category, making it helpful for navigation. (Moreover, I think that Sami educator is more defining than Sami schoolteacher). Regardless, Yupik's reason for keeping isn't a good reason to keep or create categories. Please review WP:EGRS before making more categories. Mason (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ossetian male writers edit

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Non-defining intersection between ethnicity, occupation, and gender. Mason (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; we already have similar categories of ethnciity/occuptation/gender, such as Category:African-American male writers, Category:Yoruba women writers, and Category:Basque women writers. Categorizing writers by gender and nationality is quite common as well; see Category:Male writers by nationality. ForsythiaJo (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths from food poisoning edit

Nominator's rationale: Conflict in naming conventions between Category:Deaths from digestive disease and Category:Deaths from infectious disease; and Category:Deaths by poisoning. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – I think we mostly use "deaths by" for intentional killings, "deaths from" or "deaths due to" where there was no intention. The current name seems to be natural English, but Category:Deaths due to food poisoning sounds OK as an alternative. – Fayenatic London 10:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animated characters debuting in 1972 edit

Nominator's rationale: Neither of the articles listed here are for fictional characters, but their television shows. I could not find any other entries for this category. If this category is kept, it should be at Category:Animated characters introduced in 1972 anyway. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actors by ethnicity edit

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content of these categories. The diffusing attribute is not these actors' ancestors but it is rather their own ethnicity. Also, this aligns with parent Category:People by occupation and ethnicity. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories without CatAutoTOC and friends edit

Nominator's rationale:

This whole tree needs a little bit of love. I came here to propose a speedy rename from "Foo CatAutoTOC bar" to "Foo Automatic category TOC bar" following a RM at Template talk:Automatic category TOC#Requested move 28 April 2024, but I think this whole tree needs to be simplified. It is so small that diffusing by number of pages in the category is a hindrance to navigation. I will also note that Category:Categories without CatAutoTOC is terribly named: it only contains categories which use {{Category TOC}} or {{Large category TOC}} directly.

I propose we get rid of the tree and replace it with two categories, one for each template: Category:Categories which use Large category TOC without Automatic category TOC and Category:Categories which use Category TOC without Automatic category TOC. Finally, I propose we delete Category:Categories without CatAutoTOC in favor of a hatnote between the two new categories. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French violinists by gender and century edit

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:NARROWCAT and WP:OCEGRS, narrow intersections with gender, for none of these categories there will be a topic article in its own right. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Goldey College football edit

Nominator's rationale: Category lacks subjects Let'srun (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Male fiddlers edit

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. There is no need to merge somewhere, the subcategory is already in appropriate categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2024 United States Libertarian presidential primaries edit

Nominator's rationale: Only one page, doesn’t fit with similar category styles Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century Canadian people by ethnic or national origin edit

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category level with only two subcategories each. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Architects edit

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OCEPON. These categories only contain an eponymous article and a subcategory, so having the subcategory suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Whai players edit

Nominator's rationale: Whai (basketball) is now Tauranga Whai. I created the category when the team name did not have "Tauranga" in it. The team name is now officially "Tauranga Whai". DaHuzyBru (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, for consistency with main article's name (Tauranga Whai). Paora (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dual men's international footballers edit

Nominator's rationale: They are men's footballers who are dual internationals, the current order does not make grammatical sense. An alternative would be Dual internationalists (men's football), mirroring how the female players cat has been named‎ Crowsus (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative, similarity would be good, and I feel that the alternative fits it better. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 15:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative to match the women's naming. GiantSnowman 15:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anarchism task force participants edit

Nominator's rationale: It has been years since the anarchism taskforce of WikiProject Philosophy was expanded into its own dedicated WikiProject, but this category has yet to be updated to reflect that. This proposed move is a simple update to reflect the category's current use by WikiProject Anarchism. Grnrchst (talk) 08:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:18th-century German male violinists edit

Nominator's rationale: I think we should broaden this category to include violinists of all genders. Non of the othe 18th-century violinists are diffused by gender and there isn't a 18th-century german violinists category. Mason (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and re-parent per nom, despite the fact that the French 18th-century violinists are also diffused by gender. It is rather the French males that should be upmerged. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Poisoned Romans edit

Nominator's rationale: Duel upmerge as Non-defining intersection between nationality and method of death. Category:Victims of intentional poisonings isn't diffused by nationality. If not merged, it should be renamed Poisoned ancient Romans. Mason (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Category:Victims of intentional poisonings isn't diffused by nationality." Why the heck not? Murder victim categories are typically subdivided by nationality. Dimadick (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, are you going to diffuse it by nationality? I did't consider the category populated enough to need diffusion. Mason (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am not seeing any opposition to the rename (noting it was suggested in the OP and seconded by Marcocapelle). Further comments – both about the rename and the merge – would be appreciated, but if there are none I would close this as rename with no consensus on whether this should exist or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American family lawyers edit

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between occupation, type of law, and nationality. Lawyers are not typically defined by whether they practice family law. Similar to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_22#Category:Canadian_criminal_lawyers Mason (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tokyo Musashino United FC edit

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON * Pppery * it has begun... 00:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 5 edit

Category:Film templates parameter issues edit

Nominator's rationale: This is a valid Wikiproject category that exists principally as a container for other Wikiproject tracking categories, but it's straying a bit from its stated purpose: not every category that's been filed here is tracking issues in the "something wrong here that needs to be fixed" sense, and instead some of them are just tracking usages without regard to any "issues". So genuine "issues" categories can be left here, but "usage" categories should be upmerged to the parent instead of being here. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The category trees of Template parameter issues by task and Template parameter issues by topic (which includes the nominated category Category:Film templates parameter issues) created by me in 2022 are named this way because of the original category Wikipedia template parameter issues. I too, at some point in this process, realized that some relevant categories are just for tracking/awareness, not for fixing issues. I wouldn't mind renaming the whole category tree into Wikipedia template tracking categories, Template tracking categories by task, and so on.
An alternative would be to make it an additional structure on top: Wikipedia template tracking categories could be the parent of Wikipedia template parameter issues, Template tracking categories by topic – parent of Template parameter issues by topic, and so forth. What do you think?
This is a much larger scope than the original nomination, let me know if you want to limit the discussion here to just the film-related categories. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 200#PetScan or DB query for categories exclusively in Category:Hidden categories and Category:Tracking categories. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American buskers edit

Nominator's rationale: This was previously discussed and agreed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 31#Category:American buskers before it was suddenly moved back without any discussion. WP:ENGVAR allows us to use the American English term. Buskers is not a word generally used in the United States. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename in the spirit of WP:G4 but keep a redirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @QuietHere: as you listed this at WP:CFDS you might want to react as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I noted when I nominated this for a speedy move in January (see here), the relevant parent category is Category:Buskers by nationality, in which all other entries use that same word. I don't think it makes sense for just one category out of the tree to use different terminology, so I am opposed to this proposal as is. However, I would not oppose renaming the whole tree (and every other relevant category in the greater Category:Buskers tree) based on this given "busking" and "busker" are both redirects to street performance, and I would think it best for all categories to match with that. Plus, I would imagine "street performer" to be a better known, more readily understood, term than "busker". If you wish to extend this proposal to the whole tree, then I will gladly change my vote, but as is I think matching category names is ideal regardless of what terminology is in use. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Climbing books edit

Nominator's rationale: We should merge 'Climbing books' with 'Mountaineering books' to create 'Climbing and Mountaineering books' (as we have done with some other climbing and mountaineering categories like 'List of climbers and mountaineers'). It is not always appropriate to merge 'climbing' and 'mountaineering' but in this case it is not useful to split them as too many of the books include both topics. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged Category:Mountaineering books too. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional animals by taxon edit

Nominator's rationale: No reason has been given why this unnecessarily WP:NARROWCAT has been created. It only contains two taxons which is not enough to justify an entire separate category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Fictional animals by taxon, but merge Category:Fictional invertebrates and Category:Fictional vertebrates into Category:Fictional animals by taxon. AHI-3000 (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately doing that is just shuffling around deck chairs and makes no real difference. But I think the more longstanding categories (since 2006) should take precedence over your new 2024 category, not things be merged just because you want your category to be prominent. You have just stated an opinion but not provided a reason to back why taxon is better than the vertebrate/invertebrate split. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: My suggestion is to leave "Fictional animals by taxon" with 8 subcategories instead of 2, if your only argument is that it's too small right now. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the nominated and the alt proposal could be an improvement, but I prefer the alternative, in order to keep taxa together as a recognizable attrribute. I have tagged the two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: So do you support my suggestion? AHI-3000 (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cornish people by descent edit

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian cuisine by region edit

Nominator's rationale: Tweaking category names to be more representative of their intended usage. As they stand currently, I believe that the categories could be misunderstood as not aligning with Brazil's official regions. I hope to remedy that with this change. BaduFerreira (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sikh military edit

Nominator's rationale: Renaming (A) may be a good idea because of parents Category:Sikh Empire and Category:Military by former country, and siblings in Category:Military by former country. However, as @Marcocapelle pointed out at Speedy, this requires more discussion because there is lots of content in the category that pre-dates the Sikh Empire. Moreover, Dharamyudh (Sikhism) (an article I wrote some years ago) is a religious concept, and does not belong solely to the Sikh Empire as a state. Alternately, we could also decide that this is just an WP:ARBITRARYCAT that should be deleted (B). Also, I think that the two recently created children Category:Military units and formations of the Sikhs and Category:Wars involving the Sikhs may be WP:ARBITRARYCATs, which will also have to be renamed (A) or deleted (B). Category:Sikh warriors may be a valid category (if it passes WP:EGRS), but not all those within the military of the Sikh Empire were necessarily adherents of Sikhism, so unless renamed & rescoped, that subcategory should be removed from this tree. Please indicate your preference, as both seem workable solutions to the current issues. NLeeuw (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a difficult one, because the Sikhs dominated (parts of) Punjab, but did not have a consistent political structure in that region during the two centuries that this category tree is about. They did have military though, to defend their territories. The period covers the Early Mughal–Sikh wars until the Afghan–Sikh wars and it is only during the latter wars that there was first a Sikh Confederacy and later a Sikh Empire. Deletion or purging would certainly be counter-productive because it would arbitrarily break the military history of the region. At most diffuse by different periods. An alternative in a completely different direction is renaming to Category:Sikh military (1621–1849). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't think we should be categorising military history by religious denomination. That's kinda like creating Category:Anabaptist military and then throwing Münster rebellion and Anabaptist riot in there, as if those were carried out by the Armed Forces of the same "state". They weren't.
    We could split up by state, e.g. Category:Wars involving the Sikh Confederacy and Category:Wars involving the Sikh Empire. I would definitely support that. I could add that as Option C to the nom. NLeeuw (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The comparison with Anabaptists is unfair because the two articles you mentioned are situated at two different places and the Anabaptists held power in only one of them. Hypothetically, if they would have maintained longer in Münster, and if there they would have been called "the Anabaptists" by historians as belligerant in wars, then by all means Category:Anabaptist military would have been a valid category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it is fair, because as you mentioned, the Sikh Empire is a different state than the Sikh Confederacy, and formations such as the Akal Sena are even older, but did not yet have their own state; they were in rebellion against the Mughal Empire. (I suppose that's what you are referring to by your suggestion to start counting form 1621?).
      At any rate, we should avoid categorising military personnel by religion per WP:EGRS. A military or armed group is either always connected to a state, or usually intends to form its own state or quasi-state, and sometimes already operates a proto-state or quasi-state (even gangs and mafia can have territories of influence where they extract 'protection money', i.e. tribute). (It is for this reason that we have maintained Military personnel of Fooland rather than Military personnel from Fooland conventions; their service to Fooland defines them, not their birth or residence in Fooland).
      The Akal Sena was such a group, whose military aspects were defined by their loyalty to Guru Hargobind, and their pursuit to establish an independent Sikh state (the First Sikh State arose in 1709). The personal religious beliefs of the individual soldiers in the Akal Sena are WP:NONDEFINING for the group as a military force in service of a guru and a proto-state in the Punjab region. NLeeuw (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may have started as a rebellion, but so did the Dutch Republic which is in retrospect said to have started in the 1570s while it was only recognized by Spain in 1648. There is usually a grey area between rebellion and independence. For the Sikhs independence presumably started in 1606 with the Akal Takht and the first battle against the Mughal Empire taking place in 1621, the Battle of Rohilla. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also this follow up discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am relisting this simultaneous with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 20#Category:Sikh warriors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sikh warriors edit

Nominator's rationale: rename and purge, in 1849 the Sikhs ceased to have power in Punjab, the Sikh Empire was merged into British India. The category also contains military personnel of India who happen to be Sikhs, e.g. Jagjit Singh Aurora, they should be purged as a matter of trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What do you think this category is supposed to contain right now? And what do you think the category should contain?
Because what I am seeing is an inappropriate intersection of the Category:People by nationality tree and the Category:People by religion tree
Category:People by nationality > Category:People by occupation and nationality > Category:Military personnel by nationality > Category:Warriors by nationality > Category:Indian warriors > Category:Sikh warriors
Category:People by religion > Category:People by religion and nationality > Category:Sikhs by nationality > Category:Indian Sikhs > Category:Sikh warriors
Even the Category:People by ethnicity tree is mixed up in it because of parent Category:Punjabi people, but that could easily be Purged.
The word "Sikh" thus acquires a double meaning, namely adherents of Sikhism and subjects of the Sikh Empire or Sikh Confederacy. As you noted, The category also contains military personnel of India who happen to be Sikhs, e.g. Jagjit Singh Aurora. Therefore, the current name is ambiguous. The renaming proposal will not resolve that ambiguity. If we are to identify them with the Sikh Empire as you mentioned in the rationale, then we should alt rename to Category:Military personnel of the Sikh Empire. This would be in line with my proposal A to rename the parent Category:Sikh military to Category:Military personnel of the Sikh Empire, with possibly a separate category for Category:Military personnel of the Sikh Confederacy. NLeeuw (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Oh I see you already created Category:Military personnel of the Sikh Empire as a subcategory of Category:Sikh warriors 3 days ago. Shall we also create Category:Military personnel of the Sikh Confederacy and diffuse the rest? NLeeuw (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the proposal my response is predictable: I think the category is supposed to contain Sikh warriors while the Sikhs were self-governing, i.e. governing the Punjab region in which they were in the majority. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote: there wasn't really any such thing as military personnel of the Sikh Confederacy since the military was primarily organized per member state. They just joined forces upon need. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
while the Sikhs were self-governing, i.e. governing the Punjab region in which they were in the majority. I'm afraid that is an WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Political and military control over an area never perfectly coincides with the area where a certain ethnic, linguistic, religious etc. group lives or lived. That is the fiction of the modern nation-state, that you can have population and state borders coincide. E.g. there never was a time when all inhabitants of the "Netherlands" were "Dutch" by ethnicity, language, nationality or whatever, nor did they ever all adhere to exactly the same religion. Crosscats of people by nationality, by religion, by ethnicity and by language are always inappropriate for that reason.
If confederacies / confederations do not have military personnel, how come we've got: Category:Confederate States of America military personnel, Category:Swiss military personnel by century before 1848 (when Switzerland transformed from a confederation to a federation) etc.? Besides, there is an article about Dal Khalsa (Sikh Army). NLeeuw (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is more than likely that the area that the Sikhs controlled did not exactly match with the spread of their religion. But that does not matter for the articles which are clearly about Sikh warriors defending their territories. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote: Category:16th-century Swiss military personnel is vague enough about how the military is organized, just like Category:Sikh warriors. It is not Category:16th-century military personnel of the Swiss Confederacy. On the other hand the Confederate States of America never seem to have had separate armies per state. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting simultaneous with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Sikh military.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles of the Moldavian campaign of Tymofiy Khmelnytsky edit

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now without prejudice. Template:Campaignbox Moldavian campaign of Tymofiy Khmelnytsky indicates that this category could include up to 8 articles, but only 3 of them have been written so far, and they are fine to leave in the parent category for now. NLeeuw (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: An argument could be made to merge Template:Campaignbox Moldavian campaign of Tymofiy Khmelnytsky to Template:Campaignbox Khmelnytsky Uprising for now as well, but that's beyond the scope of CFD. NLeeuw (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paintings of Hebrew Bible themes edit

Nominator's rationale: merge, a split between Hebrew Bible and Old Testament does not make too much sense in biblical art which largely originates from Christianity. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge, Hebrew Bible is the main tree here. NLeeuw (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a "main" tree per se. Old Testament is different (order of bible books), broader (with deuterocanonical books) and more applicable to topics that are more exclusively associated with Christianity. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether deuterocanonical books are included depends entirely on denomination. "Hebrew Bible" is the name for the 39 books common to Judaism and Christianity, and I see no reason why Christianity should be regarded as more important.
    On second thought, it might be better to upmerge Category:Paintings based on the Old Testament to its parents, as it is currently a mostly redundant layer. How does that sound? NLeeuw (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re "Whether deuterocanonical books are included depends entirely on denomination", as things stand the "deuterocanonical books" category is within the "Old Testament" one, so isn't this an argument against the status quo as well? But it's resolved if Category:Paintings based on the Old Testament is upmerged to its parents, leaving the subdivisions of the (Christian) Bible as "Hebrew Bible", "deuterocanonical books" and "New Testament" – with no "Old Testament"? I hope I've got that right. Ham II (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Willesden Cemetery edit

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: Speedy delete under G7. – Fayenatic London 12:57, 7 May 2024 (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.

Category:Australian business executives by industry edit

Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful for navigation to only have one category in here. Mason (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian mining entrepreneurs edit

Nominator's rationale: overlapping category. Also there's no Category:Mining entrepreneurs (which suggests that this tree is probably also redundant) Mason (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
support - good points made - however for the record - despite the fact that in the Australian context an entrepreneur tends to infer an investor/wealthy person, whereas businessperson includes and infers potentially management level - the lack of mining entrepeneurs as a tree seems to deny the universal phenomenon, which is extensive. JarrahTree 07:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
indifferent - closer examination - the specific article exists, and the separation between magnate/business person is clearly made at the head of the category - whereas the american mining business people conflates the issue by having text inside the main page Magnates of the mining industry. The conflation is unhelpful and combines the entrepreneurs and the rest. A merge will simply make a mess. JarrahTree 08:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the content of this category is a conflation anyway, with many articles about upper management level. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish communities destroyed in the Holocaust edit

Nominator's rationale: Disclaimer: I would like to say that this is a sensitive topic that should not be treated lightly. I am going to make some observations that seek to address what I see as inappropriate categorisation practices, but I thereby do not seek to deny or diminish or trivialise the severity of The Holocaust. That said: I think this is an WP:ARBITRARYCAT that should be listified, and every entry supported by WP:RS.
Detailed explanation
Firstly: We cannot say that a city or town, which had at some point a "Jewish community" (something which should also be properly defined first in terms of numbers and characteristics) living in it, should in its entirety be included in this category. The precedent Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 27#Category:Hungarian communities in Slovakia comes to mind: a minority community within a populated place or administrative region cannot be WP:DEFINING for the identity of that place or region as a whole. This is a wider issue within the Category:Historic Jewish communities in Europe tree, but also in similar category trees of "communities" that categorise entire places or regions based on a minority of ethnic group X living within its borders.
Secondly, what exactly "destroyed" means is also not clear, as there have also been many Holocaust survivors. Is a "community" only destroyed when 100% of its members did not survive the Holocaust, or is 90% enough? I'm sorry if that seems like a strange or inappropriate question, but it is one we need to ask to avoid having arbitrary percentages, and thus WP:ARBITRARYCATs. It is the same reason why we can't have Category:Fooian-speaking countries just because, say, more than 50% of inhabitants in country X speaks Fooian, because '50%' is arbitrary. (So I had those categories all renamed last year as well).
What "destroyed" means exactly may also vary. A few years ago, there was a long dispute on Dutch Wikipedia about "List of castles destroyed by the French during the Franco-Dutch War" (it had many different titles, all of which were quite arbitrary and untenable; link: nl:Wikipedia:Te beoordelen pagina's/Toegevoegd 20201103#Lijst van kastelen in Nederland, die door de Fransen rond 1672 of 1794 verwoest zijn). There, it turned out that some castles were rather "damaged" than "destroyed", or "demolished" outside of combat, and that a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH was involved in developing the list. Like this category, that list mostly sought to highlight and quantify the extent of the destruction wrought by a group of perpetrators, but failed to properly define what it was exactly about. "Community" is an even vaguer concept than "castle", and how one can "destroy a community" is really a question I would rather like to leave up to sociologists than us category Wikipedians.
If we listify this category, we could at least provide reliable sources in which scholars explain what they mean; categories cannot do that for us. NLeeuw (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the category contains articles about current-day European cities and towns rather than articles about pre-1945 Jewish communities. No objection against listification per se, but I think this task is far too big for someone to start with on a short term. The category content may be listed at the talk page of a relevant WikiProject before deletion, for someone, or maybe for multiple editors together, to start listifying in their own pace. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like a good idea. Perhaps the creator @Eladkarmel is willing to do so? NLeeuw (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These populated places are not notable for being Jewish communities. Dimadick (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not enough commentary on the proposal to listify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick Do you support the proposal to listify before deleting? NLeeuw (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only if there are enough independent sources for such a list. Dimadick (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 4 edit

Category:Carolus-Duran edit

Nominator's rationale: There's no need to have a category with two interlinked pages. It doesn't help with navigation because the two pages are the painter and the list of their works. Mason (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beacom College football edit

Nominator's rationale: Category lacks subjects. Let'srun (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films by country and year edit

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category. We don't categorize films for the intersection of their home country with individual year, so there's no prospect of this being filled out -- the only contents here are the Egyptian category listed for discussion below (which isn't actually catting the films by year, but by century, and thus wouldn't belong here even if it were kept), and Category:Lists of films by country and year, which is already filed in other subcategories of the parents and thus doesn't need this. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this naturally follows from the nomination below. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Egyptian films by year edit

Nominator's rationale: Misconceived category scheme without precedent or siblings. Despite the name of the parent category here, the contents are not actually "by year" -- Wikipedia does not categorize films for the intersection of country with individual year of release anyway, so that wouldn't even be supportable. Instead, what's actually here is two subcategories for Egyptian films by century -- but that's not a thing we do either, because that's far too wide a classification to be useful when it comes to film, and no other country has anything like this.
And for added bonus, by far the majority of Egyptian films haven't even actually been filed under here at all: Category:Egyptian films by genre has around 500 films under it, while this has just 37.
We can and do cross-categorize films on the intersection of country with decade, so no prejudice against the creation of that scheme here if desired, but by-century is too broad to be a useful grouping when it comes to films.
The Category:Lists of Egyptian films by year subcategory is fine, but is already in Category:Lists of Egyptian films, so no replacement of this is needed. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct IMAX venues edit

Nominator's rationale: Category lacks subjects. Let'srun (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge for now without prejudice. NLeeuw (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, without objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Statues depicting Mary Magdalene edit

Nominator's rationale: Not all of these sculptures are statues; The Deposition (Michelangelo) is a sculptural group of multiple figures. In this recent CfD "Sculptures of" became the preferred phrasing over "Sculptures depicting". Ham II (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Courtroom novels edit

Nominator's rationale: Perhaps I've just misunderstood something here, in which case please resoundingly reject this, but I can't seem to find the difference between these two categories or any reason why they should be separate. All but one (The Children Act) of Courtroom novels' entries appear in both categories. If I had to guess, I think one refers to the legal drama (or, more specifically, the "courtroom drama") genre while the other is the setting, but I get the sense that may just be a distinction without difference. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles by country edit

Nominator's rationale: To avoid further confusion, and make clear that we mean by country involved, not the geographical location in which the battle, war, military operation/campaign, siege or naval battle took place. All six categories already have a description explaining this, but apparently it is not enough, because editors keep misinterpreting the scope. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Battles by location. NLeeuw (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for more clarity about the purpose of these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sikh monarchs edit

Nominator's rationale: dual merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parents seem to be inappropriate but they do fit the content. All Sikhs in this category are Punjabis, all Jats in this category are Sikhs. The content of this category shouldn't be moved out of the Punjabi or Jat tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That they do fit the content is irrelevant; we've got other trees for that. Chand Kaur is already in Category:Punjabi women, for example. Btw Duleep Singh was a Christian for several decades, so we can't assume all of them to have been Sikhs ever. If we really wanna categorise all that in 1 category, then we should rename them Category:Punjabi Sikh Jat emperors or something. NLeeuw (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hindkowan families edit

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hindkowan diaspora edit

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional West Asian people edit

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 29#Category:Fictional Western European people (all Upmerged) per WP:NONDEFINING and WP:ARBITRARYCAT. NLeeuw (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, European regions do not have natural geographic boundaries and in history the European countries have interacted with each other heavily irrespective of any region definitions. I am not sure if the same applies to Asia. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all except West Asia. Most people agree on the definitions of the subregions of Asia, except for West Asia and the classification of Afghanistan. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do a simple reading, shall we?
South Asia#Definition: The geographical extent is not clear cut as systemic and foreign policy orientations of its constituents are quite asymmetrical. Beyond the core territories of the Indian Empire (territories of the British Empire which were under the system of British Raj), there is a high degree of variation as to which other countries are included in South Asia.
Central Asia#Definition: The borders of Central Asia are subject to multiple definitions.
East Asia#Definitions: (complicated, read for yourselves)
Southeast Asia#Definition: Although from a cultural or linguistic perspective the definitions of "Southeast Asia" may vary, the most common definitions nowadays include the area represented by the countries (sovereign states and dependent territories) listed below. (WP:UNSOURCED, typical case of WP:OR)
West Asia#Definition The term West Asia is used pragmatically and has no "correct" or generally accepted definition.
It's quite evident that there are no universally accepted definitions of these subregions. Same as with Europe. East Asia seems closest to having a commonly accepted definition, but even there we see lots of variation in official usage by governments and international organisations like the UN. Geography doesn't really provide natural boundaries, at least very few that seem to follow present-day national borders. (E.g. the Himalayas do represent the northern boundary of "South Asia", but UNESCO includes Tibet and Uyghur in "Central Asia", which most definitions include into "East Asia", so that doesn't help very much.) As LP indicates, Afghanistan could be included in Central, South and even West Asia (for biological, geological or cultural-linguistic reasons); Pakistan is also sometimes included in "Middle East / West Asia and North Africa". Myanmar could be both South and Southeast Asia. And so on. NLeeuw (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • LaundryPizza03's made a comment about West Asia. It does make sense to merge West Asia and keep Asia as a parent of Middle East because West Asia and Middle East are almost coterminous. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm even more opposed to "Fictional Middle Eastern people", actually. It's one of the most arbitrary eurocentric neologisms of the 20th century, rarely has a positive connotation, and comes with numerous generalisations. I've been gently steering towards commonly accepted continental categorisations where that seems appropriate instead of these arbitrary regions and subregions that everyone seems to have a home-made arbitrary definition for. NLeeuw (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Public baths in the Arab world edit

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. 5 out of 16 are located in Spain, 1 in Israel, which are not usually considered part of the "Arab world" (itself a contested and arbitrary term). It also seems that "Turkish bath", "Islamic bath" and "Arab(ic) bath" are all lumped together. I think the non-Spain articles are best upmerged for now. For the others, subcategories can be created once they have at least 5 articles. Morocco, Syria, Egypt etc. NLeeuw (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ok. Rename to Category:Hammam per Marcocapelle. NLeeuw (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natural history edit

  • Propose deleting:
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: delete, Natural history used to be what we call Natural sciences today, the umbrella term of biology, physics, chemistry etc. The current meaning of natural history is very fuzzy. The content of these categories largely overlaps with Category:Environment of Bangladesh, Category:Environment of Barbados etc. This is a follow-up nomination after Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_11#Natural_history. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. These are WP:ARBITRARYCATs which do not aid navigation. NLeeuw (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a confused nomination citing another confused discussion as precedent. There is certainly a reasonable intersection between the natural sciences, such as the biology, botany, zoölogy, paleontology, geology, etc. of a place, and the place that they represent. The nominator here and in the previous discussion linked above notes that the term "natural history" is somewhat synonymous with "natural sciences", which would be a valid reason to move these categories or change the titles to "natural history of foo", but not to delete them unless they simply duplicated "natural sciences of foo" or "environment of foo", or a similarly-named set of categories.
But in many instances there are no such categories; I came here from WikiProject West Virginia, and there does not seem to be a similar category combining the included articles or subcategories. The overlap mentioned by the nominator does not exist in this instance, and probably does not in many others. It makes no sense to use the supposed overlap with categories that do not exist as a justification for deleting others that do. The second comment above, supporting deletion, is for a completely different reason: the supposition that there is no valid intersection between the natural sciences of an area, region, or country.
The nominator seems to suppose that there is value in collecting these articles and subcategories, but that these are redundant and mistitled; the other person does not think there is any point in collecting them in the first place. This is the same pair of contradictory reasons provided by the same two editors in the above-linked discussion being cited as precedent. I also submit that said discussion involved only these two and one other editor, and so does not set a very strong precedent for deciding the fate of hundreds of existing categories. P Aculeius (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Natural history of West Virginia consists like its siblings of biota, flora, fauna, forests which are or belong in environment. There are also geology and paleontology subcategories which are very unrelated. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are related in the sense that "environment" is related to both geology and paleontology, and readers might be served by finding a category or container category for these items together, grouped by state, region, or country. Just as a category for "natural sciences" groups these topics (or parent categories containing them), someone studying a particular place wold benefit from being able to find a grouping of biology, geology, paleontology, etc. relating to that place.
    It also makes sense to group the natural sciences away from cultural topics, such as history, politics, education, etc., rather than just having one overarching category for the place containing all of the subcategories or topics relating to it. For example, it makes sense to have "Fauna of West Virginia", "Geology of West Virginia", "Cheat Canyon", and "Mingo Oak" grouped together with each other, but not with "List of governors of West Virginia", "Taxation in West Virginia" and "Tennessee Gas Pipeline".
    As far as the title is concerned, alternative formulations—"environment of", for example—can be a bit vague; is a list of species part of "environment", or the geography of the Appalachians? Is paleontology a topic within "environment"? It seems to me that "natural history" is the broadest formulation, as "natural sciences" might be understood to have a more limited scope; a salamander or a canyon might not sound like it fits in the latter category—although I suppose someone unfamiliar with the term "natural history" might regard it similarly. Either way, deleting the category seems unhelpful to readers. P Aculeius (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per P Aculeius, whose arguments have completely convinced me that these categories are both useful and not redundant. Whether "natural history" or "natural science" is the better title I'm unsure of, but whichever is deletion is not the answer. Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't any grouping in science that treats biology (flora and fauna), geology and paleontology as a coherent group. Neither "natural history" nor "natural sciences" are commonly used for such combinations. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet, it seems that all of these are included under the headings of "natural history" and "natural sciences". So are those groupings invalid, or just not the categories that come first to mind when thinking of individual sciences? P Aculeius (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are included under the headings of "natural history" here in Wikipedia categories. But that does not mean anything. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If "natural history" and/or "natural sciences" are valid categories of science, as they seem to be, then it makes sense to group the subjects of these headings by location. Anyone researching places, such as West Virginia, California, Poland, Saudi Arabia, etc. would presumably benefit from finding categories containing sciences related to those specific places, as opposed to history, politics, economics, etc. It may be possible to subdivide "natural history" or "natural sciences" into narrower groups of topics—but that doesn't mean that the overarching categories are of no value to readers. P Aculeius (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all country and continent categories as an unnecessary duplication of existing categories. We should probably keep Category:Natural history and Category:Natural history museums by country‎. But if not deleted, due to lack of consensus, then restore those deleted in the previous nomination. – Fayenatic London 13:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beringia edit

Nominator's rationale: delete, anachronistic content, Beringia is a concept from prehistoric geography, but the category only contains current-day geography. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Marcocapelle's definition contradicts the maim article Beringia, which defines it as a current region. Dimadick (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not. It was one coherent region because the Bering Street was dry land. That is no longer the case. Beringia is not usually on any current-day map. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Dimadick. Nom seems to ignore the fact that the English term Beringia is also used for a present-day region. That it doesn't usually appear on present-day maps is an argument from anecdotal evidence. If nom could demonstrate that the category arbitrarily mixes up past and present in a confusing manner, that would be interesting to consider for a renaming or split, or something. NLeeuw (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except a spurious touristic source, all sources referenced to are related to prehistory. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm... wait, I may have judged too soon. NLeeuw (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. That one source, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/beringia/index.htm, claiming that Beringia still exists today, evidently represents a fringe view not supported by the first 10 other sources I checked. All other language versions also support the idea that it is a region which no longer exists, and equivalent to "Bering Land Bridge". So let's remove that spurious source, and delete the whole category that has nothing to do with the geological, geographical and human migratory aspect of Beringia. NLeeuw (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Virginia dynasty edit

Nominator's rationale: per WP:NARROWCAT. The category is a limited scope to only four people. There will not be further additions to this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Five articles are more than enough for a category. Dimadick (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean to delete, it does not seem a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The main article Virginia dynasty is poorly developed, and most of the bios of the 4 presidents do not even mention the term, or only in passing. The term "dynasty" can only be considered a very loose metaphor anyway, as these were elected presidents in a republic, not related to each other biologically, none of them was born in Virginia, the 2nd president John Adams breaks the "line", even the first president's "Virginity" (pun intended) is questioned in the 2nd sentence, so all we really have is 3 presidents who weren't really born in Virginia, not really related to each other, not really monarchs who succeeded each other dynastically, being randomly associated by some people, but not really a lot of people. Yeah... nah. We might almost delete the main article as well, but that's beyond this CFD. NLeeuw (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles in Northamptonshire edit

Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Battles by location. NLeeuw (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles in Fukushima Prefecture edit

Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Battles by location. NLeeuw (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, these are battles with involvement of local rulers, "involving Japan" is slightly off because the government of Japan was not involved, but "in Fukushima Prefecture" makes even less sense. On top of that, the number of articles is not such that we should keep this category under a better name. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles in the Azores edit

Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Battles by location. Not all these battles involved Portugal, but they did have something to do with the Azores. NLeeuw (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles in Uganda edit

Category:Battles involving Uganda if Republic of Uganda was a participant;
otherwise to Category:Military history of Uganda
Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Battles by location. I propose to manually upmerge these to battles in Uganda where applicable, and if the modern Republic of Uganda was not a participant, to Category:Military history of Uganda. NLeeuw (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles in Latvia edit

Category:Battles of the Livonian Crusade, or
Category:Battles involving the Livonian Order, or
Category:Battles involving Latvia, or
Category:Military history of Latvia (remainder)
Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Battles by location. These battles are an WP:ARBITRARYCAT / WP:OVERLAPCAT mix of Category:Battles of the Livonian Crusade, Category:Battles involving the Livonian Order, Category:Battles involving Latvia, and others. I propose to manually merge all items into one of these categories (if they're not there already), and put any remainders into Category:Military history of Latvia. NLeeuw (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, "in Latvia" is anachronistic because Latvia did not exist yet, but there have been other states in the same region who already have their own battles category. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles in Jamaica edit

Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN, WP:ARBITRARYCAT; location seems to be WP:NONDEFINING. Even if it were defining, it's only 3 items, so Upmerge for now applies. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Battles by location. NLeeuw (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the anachronism argument (which I argued below) may not apply, arguably this refers to the island of Jamaica. But nom is right about the small size of the category anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles in Estonia edit

Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN, WP:ARBITRARYCAT; location seems to be WP:NONDEFINING. Parent Category:Battles involving Estonia does not apply to 13 out of 15 articles, as "Estonia" as such did not exist, or was not a participant. Battle of Määritsa and Battle of Wesenberg (1268) are already in Category:Battles involving Estonia, and although that involved the Estonian partisans/Forest Brothers and the Duchy of Estonia (1219–1346) ("Danish Estonia") respectively, that is arguably correct. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Battles by location. NLeeuw (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, "in Estonia" is anachronistic because Estonia did not exist yet. "History of" is arguably correct though. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles in Angola edit

Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN, WP:ARBITRARYCAT; location seems to be WP:NONDEFINING. Not all battles involved the modern republic of Angola, so parent Category:Battles involving Angola does not always apply. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Battles by location.
Alt proposal rationale: A partial alternative may be to manually recategorise the majority of the contents into a to-be-created Category:Battles involving Portuguese Angola (as many involved the colony of Portuguese Angola), and Upmerge the remainder to Category:Military history of Angola. NLeeuw (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Private battles in the British Isles edit

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT WP:NARROWCAT; location seems to be WP:NONDEFINING. Unclear what added value "private" has, and both other parents by definition do not apply to all items and subcategories. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Battles by location. NLeeuw (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles involving the Seljuk Turks in Anatolia edit

Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN, WP:ARBITRARYCAT WP:NARROWCAT; location seems to be WP:NONDEFINING. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Battles by location. NLeeuw (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths from asthma in the Isle of Man edit

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one asthma death in the isle of man, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval canals edit

Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated categories with very little content, this does not contribute to easy navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 05:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 3 edit

Category:Deaths from tabes dorsalis edit

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. This category is for a specific way to die from syphilis. I don't think that the specific mechanism is defining Mason (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cartoonists by country templates edit

Nominator's rationale: Only contains 1 template which is already within Category:Comics creator navigational boxes. – Fayenatic London 21:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paintings of Hebrew Bible people by book edit

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category layer. It had only one parent (the target category); I added Category:Books of the Hebrew Bible, but that doesn't really make this into a useful intersection. – Fayenatic London 20:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. In addition two of the subcategories may be upmerged too. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Many books of the Hebrew Bible are remixings and recyclings of other books of the Hebrew Bible, and so we could get endless category duplicates for all the Hebrew Bible books that mention Moses, Joshua, Jacob etc. NLeeuw (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paintings of figures from the Deuteronomistic history edit

Nominator's rationale: Category:Deuteronomistic history (see Deuteronomistic history) is not part of the standard division of Bible books in either Jewish or Christian tradition. – Fayenatic London 20:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: If not merged, this should be renamed using "people" rather than "figures" like its parent hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 20:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, trivial intersection between biblical art and historical critical scholarship. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Marcocapelle. It is unwise to be intersecting critical scholarship and biblical art this way; most paintings were created before modern critical scholarship even existed. NLeeuw (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, not so much a "trivial intersection" but an unfamiliar term to most, and a tree that is not too crowded anyway. Johnbod (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nudity in film edit

Nominator's rationale: This is a purge proposal rather than a deletion proposal per se; there may be a case to be made that the ongoing monitoring needed to properly maintain this category is more trouble than it's worth, although that's not the argument I'm prepared to mount in the moment (though I wouldn't stand in the way of a consensus going in that direction either.)
The issue here is that the category's usage note states that it is for films that "pioneered nudity or were controversial due to nudity", but it has a bad habit of collecting random films that happen to have nude scenes in them without stating or sourcing anything whatsoever about the nude scenes being either "pioneering" or "controversial" -- on a random spotcheck of about ten or so articles here, only one contained any content whatsoever to support any kind of controversy, and the majority failed to even contain the words "nude" or "nudity" at all apart from the presence of this category.
It's certainly possible that some of the films I didn't check were genuinely pioneering or controversial (I didn't, frex, spotcheck anything with "naked" or "nude" in its title, since I was looking for questionable entries rather than obviously includable ones), but not everything in this category actually fits that criterion -- so it needs to be either purged of any entries that aren't sourceably pioneering or controversial, or simply deleted as more trouble to maintain than it's worth. A category indiscriminately listing all films that ever had nude scenes in them at all is certainly not something we would need, but that's exactly what this is in danger of becoming if we're not sufficiently on the ball about keeping it clean. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:McCarthyists edit

Nominator's rationale: Direct overlap between this category and the anti-communist category. User:Namiba 19:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I think McCarthyists represent a specific era of American anti-communism, namely the late 1940s through the 1950s, as the main article McCarthyism says. It's also a more specific style of anti-Communism, connected with American patriotism and replete with conspiracy theories that turned out to be false. Plenty of American anti-communists of the time had different reasons for opposing communism than the rather fringe ideas of a demagogue and conspiracist like McCarthy. NLeeuw (talk) 09:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the articles in this category, few of them make any mention of McCarthyism and are not defined by it. McCarthyism is a catch-all term for anti-communism during the aforementioned period. Outside of Joseph McCarthy and a few others, anti-communist is a better descriptor according to sources.--User:Namiba 11:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Changed my !vote to Weak oppose. Still not excited, but it might be okay. NLeeuw (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge, looking at the articles, many aren't defined by either anti-communism or McCarthyism, so deletion is also a good option. Otherwise merge, people living in the same time and having similar opinions as one senator is a kind of WP:OCASSOC. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Swedish emigrants to Japan edit

Nominator's rationale: Dual speedy upmerge for now. These categories were deleted due to only having one person it in (and is still the case), which wasn't helpful for navigation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_11#More_emigrants Mason (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a tree in which every possible combination has its own category. For example there are no less than 33 articles directly in Category:Swedish emigrants and only 30 subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of ♡ | speak 18:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles involving Bengal edit

Nominator's rationale: merge, battles are diffused by (former) countries and Bengal was not a country. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok that is a reasonable alternative, but then still the content should be added to Category:Battles involving the Indian kingdoms too. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: it should only be a selective merge to that parent, because many of the articles are already in other subcats of that one, and I'm not sure whether the others belong there. I suggest you watch the category and merge any valid missing items yourself if the rename goes through. – Fayenatic London 15:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Input in general would be great, but in particular input on FL's proposal would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fooian American billionaires edit

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up discussion to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Category:Asian American billionaires. WP:OCEGRS; upmerge all to Category:American billionaires. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per my comments at previous discussion. Chubbles (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support all the ones listed here. (a.k.a. all of them except African Americans) also per my prior comment. Mason (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ethnic groups in Europe by language family edit

Nominator's rationale: Geography is WP:NONDEFINING for language families. Each of these "ethnic groups" (if we can even call them that) has "members" living on every single continent on Earth, and there is no reason to categorise them by continent. NLeeuw (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. It is a strange category tree anyway, it is more like ethnic groups named after their language family, or maybe just ethnolinguistic groups. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States National Recording Registry albums edit

Nominator's rationale: The same rationale as last time: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 28#Category:United States National Recording Registry albums. I still see no reason for this category to be active and it is still redudant to Category:United States National Recording Registry recordings. Even if all the album articles were listed under the United States National Recording Registry albums category, that would just leave songs and other miscellaneous records under the United States National Recording Registry recordings category. It is really a crime to have all the inducted recordings under one category? QuasyBoy (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point Espngeek (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sikh terrorism by country edit

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only three (and probably soon only two) subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles by location edit

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: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recently created (12 March 2024) trivial intersection between military history and modern geography. We categorise Category:Battles by "country" (i.e. "battles involving country X"), "period", "type" (naval, aerial etc.), and "war", but not location or geography. We should follow precedent and delete any battles category based on location/geography as a WP:NONDEFINING WP:TRIVIAL WP:CROSSCAT.
Follow-up to:
Procedural note: I think it is important to confirm the precedents first, namely that battles should not be categorised by location/geography. But if it is desired that all subcategories be included in this nomination rather than nominated in a follow-up, I will tag them as well. But I expect that they will need a customised case-by-case approach with mergers and renamings, as happened with the Flanders/Wallonia, Drenthe, and Netherlands by province precedents. It would be wise to do so according to the Manescheut principle: Merging to the History of (modern territory) category (Ane), or Merging to the historically applicable territory (Scheut). E.g. Category:Battles in the Azores could be upmerged to Category:History of the Azores (Ane), merged to Category:History of the Portuguese Empire (Scheut), or perhaps renamed to Category:Military history of the Azores; it doesn't necessarily need to be deleted, but the current situation is untenable.
Therefore, to prevent a WP:TRAINWRECK, I'm only nominating the recently created two new categories for deletion, and to purge the subcategories that are in the battle by country (involved) and battle by type (battlespace) trees. NLeeuw (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination deserves sympathy, but the proposal is deletion of the parent categories while the subcategories are the bigger issue. By deleting the parents we will merely loose sight of the subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle Granted. Then maybe I should start by the roots of the tree first? Alternately, I could simply copypaste the contents of the category here for reference while we clean the tree up, so that we don't lose sight of it.
    Incidentally, it does have a main article: List of battles by geographic location. A December 2022 AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles by geographic location, decided to keep but split the article by country. Some efforts have been made to do that, but it is far from completed. The argument that the location of a battle may be WP:NONDEFINING or WP:TRIVIAL, or in the words of the nom Second, it is organized by current country, even if the battle took place before the country existed and who in the world is going to look for the Battle of Megiddo (15th century BC) in the Israel section?, did not receive broad support in favour of deletion by the other participants, who seemed only concerned with navigability. Moreover, nobody seemed concerned that the entire list is WP:UNSOURCED.
    This does worry me a little. If the mainspace does not object to putting battles in lists by geographic location, does the category space have a good reason to object to it and delete such categories anyway? NLeeuw (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: List of battles in Belgium was even deleted on 18 March 2024, shortly after it was split off from the List of battles by geographic location, because it had no sources. The same could happen to all lists of battles by country that have been split off or will be split off in the future. I'm not sure how we should proceed. NLeeuw (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Starting by the roots of the tree first would have my preference, copypasting the contents of the category here for reference while we clean the tree up would be my second choice. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Marcocapelle I've withdrawn the nomination for now (see below), and began working on the roots of the tree. I also just found WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN as a good guideline to invoke in phasing out battles by location categories. NLeeuw (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination for now as nom. We will start by the roots of this category tree first and work our way to the top. I've WP:BOLDly purged the two subcategories already for this purpose. NLeeuw (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2024 (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.

Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons edit

Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category. Let'srun (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; standard cat scheme. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Saying something is standard, so we should keep it, is not a compelling reason. Having only one category is not helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Parallelism matters and should be considered a central pillar of Wikipedia. If this cat merged as nominated, then 1943 Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football team is lost from the tree at Category:College football seasons by team. User:Let'srun's notations here are becoming tiresome and obstructive. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Film controversies in India edit

Nominator's rationale: See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Subcategories of Category:Film controversies by country: this one also has a subcategory which needs purging, so I have elected to nominate it separately to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK. Purge of all articles about films, leaving only the articles about controversies themselves. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge all articles about a particular film, but keep subcategories and articles about controversies, per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Film controversies in South Africa edit

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Subcategories of Category:Film controversies by country: I don't see a future for this category in its current state. Most of the articles in this category are controversial films, not articles about film controversies. What stopped me from including it in the mass nomination is Films and Publications Act, 1996, which seems does not seem to belong here, either. Even if we grant that it does belong here, after purging the articles about films this would be a single-member category. Delete this category; discussion of the categorization of Films and Publications Act, 1996 can take place at Talk:Films and Publications Act, 1996 HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Film controversies in Malaysia edit

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Subcategories of Category:Film controversies by country: I don't see a future for this category in its current state. Most of the articles in this category are controversial films, not articles about film controversies. What stopped me from including it in the mass nomination is 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal, which seems does not seem to belong here, either. Even if we grant that it does belong here, after purging the articles about films this would be a single-member category. Delete this category; discussion of the categorization of 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal can take place at Talk:1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategories of Category:Film controversies by country edit

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Film controversies in Spain, in which it was decided to nominate the entire tree of Category:Film controversies by country. I would in theory say we should purge the categories of articles about films themselves – leaving only articles about controversies themselves. However, doing that would leave most of these categories empty. Therefore, I have nominated those categories for deletion, with no prejudice against recreating any of these categories if they can be appropriately populated. The ones which do contain articles about film controversies themselves (e.g. Category:Film controversies in Canada contains Natural Born Killers copycat crimes) I have nominated for purging. If, after purging, any category is too small to be useful we can have a discussion about upmerging that category.

I have not nominated Category:Film controversies by country for anything in particular, but I will tag it so it can be discussed here. I personally would advocate for that it be kept, even though most of its contents will no longer exist.

There are also three categories (Category:Film controversies in South Africa, Category:Film controversies in India, and Category:Film controversies in Malaysia) which have considerations specific to that category; I will start separate discussions on those to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK. Also pinging participants in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Film controversies in Spain: Marcocapelle, Bearcat, Qwerfjkl, and Nederlandse Leeuw. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom and my own rationale in the previous discussion. To summarise: It should not be sufficient to only have a "controversy/controversies" section in an article about the film itself; although it may help establish notability, it is usually WP:NONDEFINING. Nor is it appropriate to label an entire film as "controversial" per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, and Category:Controversial films has been repeatedly deleted for that reason. And yet, almost the entire tree of Category:Film controversies by country is currently populated with main articles about the films themselves, rather than stand-alone spin-off articles about the controversies they caused. I think that is very inappropriate categorisation practice. I happened to come across it first with the Spain subcategory, but as this is not a Spain-only issue, at the request of fellow editors, I have withdrawn the nomination in favour of a broad discussion about the entire tree. I thank HouseBlaster for preparing this follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support i.e. purge all articles about a particular film, but keep subcategories and articles about controversies, per nom. And delete the category if it becomes empty after the purge. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support purging and deleting subsequently empty categories. The same purging appears needed at the parent Category:Film controversies with the rationale Nederlandse Leeuw provides. CMD (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename them like this Category:Bangladeshi films involved in controversies. Mehedi Abedin 11:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just Category:Controversial films under another name. It remains a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. NLeeuw (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spam filtering edit

Nominator's rationale: These seem to be the same topic - many pages are in both. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. There could be a set category for spam filters but that can be created after this merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 2 edit

Disputed/unknown cause edit

Nominator's rationale: Feels very much like a WP:OCMISC to me. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by mechanical failure edit

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer. Boeing manufacturing and design issues fits just as well in the subcat. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aircraft bombings edit

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer. Category:Kamikaze shouldn't be here at all since the scope appears to be "bombings targeted at aircraft", not "bombings using aircraft as a weapon" (which would be Category:Bomber aircraft) and Kamikaze bombers targeted ships rather than aircraft. That leaves only one redirect and one subcat. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aviation accidents and incidents involving uncontained engine failure edit

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer. Only one subcat * Pppery * it has begun... 21:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NAIA Women's Basketball Championships edit

Nominator's rationale: Over-capitalized. Dicklyon (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deputy Heads of state edit

Nominator's rationale: Category of unclear utility, whose name isn't really an accurate reflection of its contents. This was created within the past month solely as a parent for Category:Vice presidential residences -- but that's already a subcategory of Category:Vice presidencies, and the name of this implies that its contents should be people rather than inanimate things related to job titles. There really aren't other types of "deputy head of state" besides vice-presidents anyway, so this functionally just duplicates another category that already exists. Bearcat (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful category to hold the articles on deputy heads of state, most of which would be titled vice president or other similar titles. 42.200.80.48 (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They would not be titled vice presidents, they are titled vice presidents. And vice presidents already have their own tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings and structures on the Ashley River (South Carolina) edit

Nominator's rationale: delete, the categories contain only one article each, that is not helpful for navigation between articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:John Hawks buildings in New Bern, North Carolina edit

Nominator's rationale: There's no need to difuse this category be the city that these buildings are in given that these are the only two buildings in the full tree. Mason (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a third article but that does not change matters, the parent category remains empty, so merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nazi Germany ministers edit

Nominator's rationale: Fix the rather ungrammatical title of this category and rename it to be consistent the main article, Hitler cabinet (t · c) buidhe 04:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Atari 8-bit family games edit

Nominator's rationale: Article has recently gone through a name change to Atari 8-bit computers. This category should reflect that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--Krótki (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the categories listed by Krótki.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unless anyone is going to object to the article move (which happened 2 weeks ago) the category name should just follow the new article name. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom and Krótki. NLeeuw (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 1 edit

14th-century transport infrastructure edit

Nominator's rationale: merge, unnecessary complex tree for only three articles in total. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chitrali cuisine edit

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: withdrawn by nominator and retagged as C1. (non-admin closure) ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 08:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary; Only one article in category, which is the titular article Chitrali cuisine. Chitrali cuisine has also already been added to the proper categories, so we don't need a merge. ForsythiaJo (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category is meanwhile empty. Presumably this is a case of speedy WP:C2F anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, this category has been emptied. No need to come to CFD. Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 2 May 2024 (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.

Category:Continental League contributors edit

Nominator's rationale: No need for parent category, see below. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Continental League edit

Nominator's rationale: Too little content, all adequately interlinked. See also second proposal above. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:USA for Africa songs edit

Nominator's rationale: Categories containing only 1 article. Unlikely to be expanded since the group has been inactive for 40 years. Mika1h (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See comment by Pppery.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While not a guideline, there is consensus per WP:ALBUMSTYLE "that a category for an artist's albums should be created even if they have only released one album (irrespective of whether they are likely to release more in the future)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk • contribs) 18:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dutch cookies edit

Nominator's rationale: overcategorization, attempt to empty the categories cookie and Dutch cuisine. The Banner talk 07:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Film task force usage edit

Nominator's rationale: Outdated WikiProject tracking categories, no longer applied or used by the template that formerly used them. {{WikiProject Film}} used to feature code that would count how many of the project's task forces any given film had been assigned to, and automatically sort the page into one of these categories accordingly -- but it no longer does, so none of these categories are still in any use because the template isn't populating them anymore.
They can of course be recreated in the future if they're ever actually needed again, but there's no need to indefinitely hold onto them if they're not actually being used. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Russo-Turkish War (1672-1681) edit

Nominator's rationale: Recently created new category with an error in its name. The two articles filed here both say that the Russo-Turkish war that they were part of began in 1676, not 1672 -- and indeed, we have an article titled Russo-Turkish War (1676–1681), but none titled Russo-Turkish War (1672–1681). Meanwhile, there's a completely separate article about a Polish–Ottoman War (1672–1676), but the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was not part of Russia in that era, so they aren't the same thing and wouldn't belong in one merged category.
I'm not sure whether the creator just made a typo or actually merged two separate wars together, but this category should be renamed and have Russo-Turkish War (1676–1681) added to it as its head article (although I'm not inclined to preemptively add it to the wrongly-named category in the interim.) Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:5th-century Irish literature edit

Nominator's rationale: Isolated category, not currently useful for navigation as it only holds 5th-century Irish writers, which is already in all the parent categories via other hierarchies. – Fayenatic London 09:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Connector category between the Irish writers tree of cats and the Irish literature cat. 42.200.80.48 (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Redirects from gender edit

Nominator's rationale: The current title, Category:Redirects from gender, was a little confusing to me - at first, the name suggested to me that this category (and the related template) might be for categorizing redirects from the name of a gender identity. I propose moving it to the more specific title Category:Redirects from gendered terms, in order to clarify the purpose of this redirect category and remove the potential ambiguity.
Starting this CfD as a parallel discussion to the RM at Template talk:R from gender § Requested move 1 May 2024. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 09:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spinozist philosophers edit

Nominator's rationale: Redundant with either Category:Spinozists (adherents to Spinoza's philosophy) or Category:Spinoza scholars (philosophers who produce scholarship on Spinoza, independent of their own inclination).

All current members of this category are also in one of those two categories. Psychastes (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. In addition, the description on the category page is such that it is hardly a defining characteristic, more a case of WP:OCASSOC. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


April 30 edit

Category:Princes of Vladimir edit

Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer. Upmerge to parents.
Detailed explanation for nerds :)

Theoretically speaking, the first one, Andrey Bogolyubsky, never called himself "grand prince of Vladimir", and was never called it while alive. But the linguistic evidence shows his successor Vsevolod the Big Nest had himself called "grand prince" in the Suzdalian Chronicle from 1185 onwards (see Talk:Vladimir-Suzdal#When did the princes of Vladimir become grand? if you are as nerdy as me and want to know all the details. ;) ). At most, we could put 2 items in this category, 1 of which will also be in its only child, while the other is often (technically incorrectly) called "grand prince" in literature anyway. We could also include Mikhail of Vladimir and Yaropolk Rostislavich, who sat on the throne for a very short time during the 1174–1177 Suzdalian war of succession that Vsevolod ended up winning, but that still only fills the category with 4 people. So I'm okay with treating them as essentially the same.

NLeeuw (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Armenian screenwriters by century edit

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which isn't helpful for navigation. (Even if a 2nd category were made, it still wouldn't be helpful as this is the only category in the in parent) Mason (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. By the way the subcategory covers the century that is probably the least interesting to people who study history of literature. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The problem here is that Category:21st-century Armenian screenwriters is using the standardized {{Screenwriters by nationality and century category header}} framework — but that template autogenerates an artificially-transcluded "[Country-named-in-this-category] screenwriters by century" as a standard part of its formatting. But that can't be left to sit there redlinked, so either it has to exist regardless of any size issues, or we have to wrap the template in {{suppress categories}} to bork its category generation and then manually file Category:21st-century Armenian screenwriters in the other categories that still exist. But that would defeat the entire purpose of using the standardized template in the first place, and would have the side-effect of stranding that category from the Category:Screenwriters by nationality and century tree.
    I'm not at all wedded to this being essential, and have personally wrapped many category-generating templates in the suppress categories wrapper when necessary, but just wanted to point out that there are "standardized formatting" considerations here beyond size.
    Really, it's more a question of whether Category:Armenian screenwriters need any by-century categorization yet — with only six people in the 21st-century category and only 20 in the parent, it's not clear that subbing them out for century is needed at all — but if the 21st-century category does exist, then this is automatically imposed and transcluded by the template as a standard and expected parent for it, so the question is really less about the need for this than it is the need for a 21st-century category to exist at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bearcat, I'm not sure how the this comment is relevant to the nomination at hand. And, for the record, it isn't the case the FOOian occupation by century needs to exist. That category is only added if it exists, otherwise, the category is added to FOOian screenwriters. Mason (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with non-binary gender identities edit

Nominator's rationale: To be more objective. The current title became unnecessary since every non-binary biography is diffused into subcategories. I can understand that not every person with a non-binary gender identity self-identifies as non-binary personally, and that the list uses this phrase in the title, but we name Category:Non-binary writers, not Category:Writers with non-binary gender identities. And the names would be too big. --MikutoH talk! 01:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender studies and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. If there is no further participation within a week, we should be all set to rename as nominated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nomination. Makes sense and thanks. Jessamyn (my talk page) 01:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I don't think we use "people with [x]" for any self-applied label, so this reads very very weird. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New Zealand Rātanas edit

Nominator's rationale: Procedural follow up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Rātanas. Pinging participants there @Grutness, @Marcocapelle, @HTGS. Qwerfjkltalk 17:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this way it is clearer that it is a biographical category. And it is too obvious that it is about New Zealand people, that does not have to be added to the category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - that would be a sensible option. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as above. Worth considering that “Ratanas” is also ambiguous between followers of the man, and his family and descendants. Hopefully the new name is fine with encompassing both? Categories for certain NZ families with many notable figures are not uncommon. And thank you for the ping ☺️ — HTGS (talk)
  • Family (if not followers) should be covered by a Category:Rātana family if there are enough of these articles. But if all notable family members are followers then we will not need such a category anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Third-person view edit

Nominator's rationale: I've created this one few minutes ago, but maybe the name should be analogous to Category:First-person video games? Consider the existence of Category:First-person shooters and Category:Third-person shooters, with only the first having a parent category outside shooter games (until my creation). Both have main articles. However, third-person view has a redirect to an article section, while first-person view goes to a disambig, sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: what other content are you planning to add to this category? That will provide the answer to the question. If topic articles are going to be added then "view" seems the right name. If only video games are going to be added then "video games" is the obvious right name. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there isn't anything going to be added on a short term then the category might as well be deleted, because of lack of content. It can be recreated when it is more clear what sort of content there is. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Intersex lesbians edit

Nominator's rationale: Since its siblings (Category:Non-binary lesbians and Category:Intersex gay men) were nominated for discussion, I bring it here for consensus. Merge or keep? --MikutoH talk! 22:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Intersex transgender people
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:First Nations drawing artists edit

Nominator's rationale: There is no "drawing artists" category. Mason (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would these categories be acceptable if there was a larger "drawing artists" category? We already have Category:Cartoonists, Category:Draughtsmen, and Category:Illustrators, plus artists in Category:Ballpoint pen art, and we don't yet have a category for artists who use charcoal, so there would be plenty to fill a larger umbrella category. ForsythiaJo (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't think that drawing artist is a defining category. Mason (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is Ledger art but I am not sure if the articles would fit that. In fact most articles just say "artist", so the merge seems reasonable. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. There are not good terms for fine artists who prominently draw (pen and ink, pencil, pastels, etc.). Illustrators, draftsmen, and graphic artists are sometimes used, but the phenomenon of Native American, First Nations, and especially Inuit artists who predominantly draw is well established. Yuchitown (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point to literature on the this predominance? And do you have a suggestion for better name for the occupation? Mason (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Firstly, we should never localize by using just "First Nations", a term large numbers of our readers won't be familiar with. Secondly, whilst I recognise issues mentioned above, I don't think we want a new overall category for "drawing artists" or even "graphic artists". In most traditions, few artists worked exclusively in drawing. "Artists" is enough. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, First Nations people are absolutely categorized. See Category:First Nations people and its numerous subcats. Yes, numerous fine artists do specialize in drawing (pen and ink, graphite, pastels, etc.). Seems like some familiarity with the subject at hand should be valued in these conversations. Not everyone understands Category:Axiomatic quantum field theory but we don't upmerge it. Yuchitown (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
    They may be, but they shouldn't be! "of Canada" needs to be added for our many (cough) NON-CANADIAN readers. Johnbod (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since we're supposed to continue discussion after the relisting, I'm responding here to Mason request. Like I said in my "oppose", there isn't a good term for artists who specialize in drawing. Draftsman has gender issues. Graphic artist is widely used, especially in regard to Inuit artists (examples at Inuit Art), but is confused with graphic design. Illustrator suggests an image to support text as opposed to a free-standing work of art. Sometimes the Inuit artists who primarily draw and whose work is made into prints are lumped in with printmakers but are not the same person making the print. Inuit drawings are a well-established subject of literature. Drawing artist is an easily understood compromise. Yuchitown (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • Oppose merge - I find the term "Drawing artist" awkward, I've always used the gender neutral "Draftsperson", but some may think of that awkward as well. Nevertheless, it's an important category to retain because there are artists who work primarily in drawing media. As Yuchitown explains above, Graphic artist often gets confused with Graphic design; it is also confused with etching which a printmaking process. Any thoughts on Draftsperson? Netherzone (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm totally find with replacing "drawing artists" in the category names with "draftspeople." Yuchitown (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
    I noticed that "Draftspeople" is used in this article: List of Indigenous artists of the Americas Netherzone (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I say above, I don't see any need to go beyond plain "artist", especially as some carved etc, but if we must "graphic artist" is best - "draftspeople" will puzzle many readers. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17th and 18th century in the Mughal Empire edit

more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge, mostly single-item categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Most content is categorized at decade level and that seems to suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note Category:1754 establishments in the Mughal Empire and Category:1748 establishments in the Mughal Empire are untagged, and I don't have time to tag them right now. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neo-Latin writers edit

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C: Per all child cats and per parent Category:Writers in Latin by period.
Copy of speedy discussion
The 5 speedy nominees were opposed by Jim Killock, see Copy of speedy discussion above. NLeeuw (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not follow the objection. If this is about style then the categories should be named Category:Writers in foo-style Latin and the larger part of the proposal follows that format. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Category:Writers of late antiquity in Latin" is extremely clunky; I have no opinion about the rest. Furius (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, for consistency this should become Category:Writers in late antique Latin Category:Writers in Late Latin. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So these are the style names: Old Latin; Classical Latin; Late Latin; Medieval Latin; Renaissance Latin; Neo-Latin.
      We have instead Category:Writers of late antiquity in Latin; Category:Renaissance writers in Latin; Category:Medieval writers in Latin. These remove or obscure the "styles" and make them in effect "period".
      The grammar objection is this. I write in Noun-Neo-Latin. I am a adjective-Neo-Latin noun-writer. I am not in Neo-Latin. Thus a writer is not "in" Neo-Latin. Thus writers cannot be "in" Neo-Latin. At least; it's not great English. I can imagine someone saying "A list of writers in English"; yet this isn't really correct, it should be a "A list of English writers", for the same reason (English here is an adjective, not a noun) (or "A list of writers writing in English", so that English can be used as a noun). see wiktionary:en:Latin#English regarding the noun and adjectival uses of Latin. Jim Killock (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Note that Category:Latin-language writers of late antiquity is a child of Category:Writers of late antiquity. "late antiquity" refers to the time they lived in, not (directly) what kind of Latin they wrote in. Alt renaming to something like Writers in late antique Latin would change the scope.
      I must say I find the category fairly dubious to begin with: it has only 6 articles (which could easily be diffused to "by century" categories), and the rest are just Xth-century writers in Latin‎ from the 3rd to the 8th, all of which are already children of Category:Writers in Latin by century. The added value of such arbitrary duplication eludes me. "Late antiquity" isn't a very commonly used term anyway; the conventional timeframes are "Antiquity" and "Middle Ages". If we can't agree on how to properly phrase the catname, maybe we should just delete or upmerge it instead.
      it should be a "A list of English writers" This is the kind of convention we have been phasing out for years, because adjectives such as "English" (or "Latin", for that matter) are ambiguous due to their multiple meanings (language, country, nationality, ethnicity, geography/location, "style" (e.g. English landscape garden, which you could surprisingly create anywhere on Earth outside England as well)), which almost inevitably leads to confusion and miscategorisation. "Latin-language writers of late antiquity" is hardly a prettier phrase than "writers in Latin", which at least makes clear that the writers wrote in Latin, and that they were not ethnically speaking one of the Latins, or from the Latin League, or from Latin America, or a songwriter of Latin music songs etc. etc. NLeeuw (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree the categorisation is not done correctly overall. They conflate period and style. The category names are mostly unambiguiously about style. The socially predominate categorisation of Latin is by style, so that is what people will expect.
      I also agree with the principle of removing ambiguous phrases, I just don't agree with naming things with incorrect grammar. Writers are not in a noun-Language. People do something in a language; books and poems are written in a language. A different formulation is needed for "writers" to use the adjectival form avoiding "in". Jim Killock (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What about Category:Books in Latin? Is that also grammatically incorrect? If not, why not?
      I see both catnames as merely an abbreviation of a longer phrase.
      Books in Latin = Books that were written in Latin
      Writers in Latin = Writers who wrote in Latin
      Makes sense to me. (Also per WP:CONCISE, or whatever the category equivalent of that is). NLeeuw (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "Books in Latin": it isn't incorrect, to my understanding, as a thing can be in a language. There may be an implied "is". Perhaps the omission of "is" feels natural in contractions ("the book is in Latin" vs "the writer is in Latin", doesn't work). Perhaps it is also because writers can change their language, so one can't say a writer is "in" a language. At some point one has to ask what "sounds" right; I feel it doesn't. Jim Killock (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is always possible to read things differently than intended. "Neo-Latin writers" could be read, hypothetically, as writers who are Neo-Latin themselves. Likewise, reading "writers in Neo-Latin" as if the writers are in something themselves is equally bizarre. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's talk together!) 22:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is that contractions normally omit a part of the verb "to be" rather than some other verb. However "Neo-Latin writers" is clearer because NL is an adjective not a noun, so the phrase does not need a verb. Jim Killock (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Child amputees edit

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between kind of disability and age. Mason (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My response here is roughly the same as my response to congenital--
My understanding of the categorization rules (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization) is that categories that are relevant are based on what criteria are considered defining. I believe that child amputee status (this is a person who has an amputation that occurs AFTER they are born but before they are an adult) is considered a meaningful category in the emic (i.e., members) of the limb difference community. E.g., https://www.oandplibrary.org/alp/chap31-01.asp, https://www.waramps.ca/ways-we-help/child-amputees/, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0030589820321490, https://www.independentliving.org/donet/51_international_child_amputee_network.html
This reflects the fact that the lived experience of those with child (as compared to adult amputation or congenital amputation) is often quite different (e.g., variation in phantom limb experience, the need to actively learn how to function without a limb from birth vs learning as an adult, the use of prosthetics vs not [prosthetics are less frequently used by those with congenital limb differences]). I am aware of this through my extensive involvement with the limb difference community. It can also be observed by a read of the discussions of amputees and those with limb differences (e.g., one of many examples here: https://www.reddit.com/r/amputee/comments/12nfcrl/adults_who_had_their_amputations_as_very_young/, https://www.reddit.com/r/amputee/comments/15j1kp2/looking_for_support_child_lost_a_finger/).
There is a precedence set for amputee categories based on the current categories presented (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Amputees). Certainly child amputees is just as or probably notably recognized as per current Wikipedia guidelines (e.g., coming up in the introduction) than other categories (e.g., there is no page German amputees; "Works about Amputees" is certainly not a defining characteristic of much of the included media. This is not to say that these other categories should be removed, but rather, to show that child meets the required threshold of defining.
Another criteria for defining category is that it is in the lead to an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Defining). This is the case with many entries in this category, reflecting the fact that many members of this category are on Wikipedia because of their advocacy or involvement in activities related to their childhood amputation. Some examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mihaela_Lulea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_O%27Riordan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimee_Mullins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hisako_Nakamura
Etc.
I want to emphasize here the importance of not collapsing child and congenital into one category because of, again, the relevant community's differentiation in these two groups' experiences, as well as how medical research has coalesced on these differences (you will notice that child amputees are not included in the congenital amputee page, for instance). Note this follows Wikipedia's criteria of categorization in so far as categories should be as specific as possible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization_dos_and_don%27ts Calculatedfire (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I understand that you have experiences with this community, however, we don't typically have categories that distinguish people by what stage of development they were disabled. I am extremely sympathetic, but the examples you give are people who are defined by the intersection of their activism while having a disability, not that they were amputees during their childhood. Please review other categories for children. Mason (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manually merge, trivial intersection between type and starting age of disablement. People will need to get used to missing a limb irrespective of their age. Most articles are already in a Category:Amputees by nationality subcat so a plain merge will lead to a lot of duplication. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Congenital amputees edit

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between specific disability and source of the disability. Mason (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the categorization rules (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization) is that categories that are relevant are based on what criteria are considered defining. I believe that congenital amputee status is considered a meaningful category in the emic (i.e., members) of the limb difference community. E.g., https://www.amputee-coalition.org/resources/amputations-in-childhood/ . This reflects the fact that the lived experience of those with congenital vs acquired amputations is often quite different (e.g., variation in phantom limb experience, the need to actively learn how to function without a limb from birth vs learning as an adult, the use of prosthetics vs not [prosthetics are less frequently used by those with congenital limb differences]). I am aware of this through my extensive involvement with the limb difference community. It can also be observed by a read of the discussions of amputees and those with limb differences (e.g., one of many examples here: https://www.reddit.com/r/amputee/comments/zl8rdk/looking_for_insight_into_child_amputee/).
Note also that there is a Wikipedia page for congenital amputees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_amputation) which per categorization rules is an important signal that a category is defining. Calculatedfire (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also meant to add- there is a precedence set for amputee categories based on the current categories presented (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Amputees). Certainly congenital amputees is just as or probably notably recognized as per current Wikipedia guidelines (e.g., having its own Wikipedia page) than other categories (e.g., there is no page German amputees; "Works about Amputees" is certainly not a defining characteristic of much of the included media. This is not to say that these other categories should be removed, but rather, to show that congenital meets the required threshold of defining. Calculatedfire (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think you'll be able to make a more compelling case if you review WP:EGRS/D which gives clearer rules for intersections with disability and other characteristics (gender, race, sexuality etc). Could you show me where having a wikipedia page about a condition means that "per categorization rules is an important signal that a category is defining"? Because I don't think that is sufficient to have a wikipedia page to ensure that it could be a category. Mason (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean to oppose, I may be mistaken but at first glance I don't think there is a trivial intersection at stake. Congenital amputation is being born without a limb, which is a "thing" in itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But is it defining for individuals? I'm open to having my mind changed, but I don't think people tend to have the lead of the article stating that they are a congenital amputee. If anything, the leads will be about amputees who acquired their disability through a headline grabbing fashion. Now, I'm well aware that there is literature on differences between acquired and congenital disabilities, and that has implications for interventions as well as well-being.
    However, I still don't think that "reliable sources [...] regularly describe the person as having th[e] characteristic". Fuller quote from Wikipedia:EGRS/D
    >"People with disabilities, intersex conditions, and other medical or psychological states or conditions, should not be added to subcategories of Category:People with disabilities, Category:Intersex people or Category:People by medical or psychological condition unless that condition is considered WP:DEFINING for that individual. For example, there may be people who have amnesia, but if reliable sources don't regularly describe the person as having that characteristic, they should not be added to the category."
    Mason (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, here I did some more research:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorizing_articles_about_people under "Specific Intersections":
    "At all times, the bottom line remains can a valid, encyclopedic main article be written for this grouping?"
    There is a main article on this subject as I noted in my original response.
    Thank you as I am learning to navigate this process. Calculatedfire (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as constituted, though open to other alternatives if somebody's got a better idea. The distinction obviously hasn't been upheld all that well in the past, but today there is greater recognition than there used to be that there is a qualitative difference between being born with a congenital limb difference and the later loss due to injury or disease of a limb one previously had. It is, for example, one of the reasons why we moved Category:Amputee sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople with limb difference about a year and a half ago, so that the terminology was more inclusive. Medical literature is stricter on the distinction now than it used to be, referring to congenital limb difference rather than congenital amputation; people with congenital limb differences are more outspoken about the differences; even media try harder now to recognize and respect the distinction (even if they're not always perfect); and on and so forth. So really, we should either allow the category system to uphold the distinction, or pick an alternative term like "people with limb difference", instead of continuing to use "amputees", if consensus really wants to collapse it. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian disc golfers edit

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. – Fayenatic London 14:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:USERCAT for utterly lacking collaborative value, compare Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/April_2008#Category:Wikipedians_who_play_golf
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pppery (talk • contribs) 01:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. I created it as I was creating the userbox and following the pattern of another sport's userbox. I didn't realize this as ancient history! WidgetKid (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category was not tagged until today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 14:13, 30 April 2024 (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.

Category:Writers of government reports edit

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. – Fayenatic London 14:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining Mason (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The single article is about a politician, that is the defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2024 (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.

Category:Canadian imperialists edit

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. – Fayenatic London 14:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non defining category, with a very large wall of text on the category page that effectively says as much Mason (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a category per nom. Possibly the wall of text can be converted to an article, if properly sourced. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2024 (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.

Category:German speculative fiction translators edit

Nominator's rationale: Duel upmerge for now. There's only one (or two) people in each of these categories which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim personnel edit

Nominator's rationale: Merge per precedent. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe these are the last categories with the name "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim". Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup qualification (CAF) edit

Nominator's rationale: This category's main focus is on the competition whose actual title is the proposed one and not made up. C2C or C2D aren't applicable here since one would look at the category page and see no focused main article. But I want full discussion on this. Intrisit (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Splendor artists edit

Convert Category:American Splendor artists to article American Splendor
Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme of Category:Artists by comic title or some such and this is analogous to WP:PERFCAT. Just make sure they are all listed (with citations) at the article on the comic. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that this is a useful category as it includes people not usually associated with their artwork, such as Alan Moore and Joyce Brabner. American Splendor was a unique title in many ways, given it was written by a single person but with dozens of different artists; it seems fitting that it merits a relatively unique category.
As a compromise, what if the category was just converted to "Category: American Splendor", not specifying artists? stoshmaster (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If artists are purged the category will become empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant was convert this category simply to "American Splendor" and it will house all things related to American Splendor, including the writers, artists, the film, and all related books (if they have separate articles) stoshmaster (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a defining characteristic of the subjects in this category. Moving this to article space is a good compromise between instant deletion and keeping. As a preliminary measure the category content may be copied to Talk:American Splendor before the category is deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Executed assassins of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman edit

Nominator's rationale: Broaden the category name. Is there really a need to distinguish between assassins who were executed and those who were not? Mason (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Georgetown College (Kentucky) edit

Nominator's rationale: In line with the main article, Georgetown College. Graham (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indonesia Wikimedians edit

Nominator's rationale: All other categories use "Indonesian". I would speedy rename but I can't figure out how to with Twinkle. 📊Panamitsu (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older discussions edit

The above are up to 7 days old. For a list of discussions more than seven days old, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All old discussions.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions&oldid=1202523150"