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 ~~~~

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 22:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 576 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).

  • Oppose all governors nominations above, anachronistic. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed requests

edit
  • @Hey man im josh: oppose the above duchesses, countesses and baronesses nominations, the proposed name wrongly suggests that Duchess of Foo was their title, while these categories are in fact about Fooian nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Kings of the Romans nominations. "King of the Romans" is a full title, it has nothing to do with Romans. Also, this has been on full discussion before. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: How is this different from MOS:JOBTITLES? King becomes kings when pluralized in all applications that I'm aware of. What more is a discussion supposed to yield? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Following up on this in case you missed the ping @Marcocapelle. Is the idea that "Kings of the Romans" is itself a proper title? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold pending other discussion

edit
  • None currently

Moved to full discussion

edit

Current discussions

edit
Shortcut

June 13

edit

NEW NOMINATIONS

edit

Category:Mexican engineer stubs

edit
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub category with no evidence of approval by Category:WikiProject Stub sorting. As always, stub categories are not free for just anybody to create on a whim, and require a minimum of 60 articles for entry -- but even after deep-scanning the Category:Mexican people stubs parent for any missed engineers, this still only has 17 articles in it.
The stub template is fine, since it can always just sort articles into the target categories, but there would have to be at least 43 more articles before a dedicated category was warranted. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muwahhidism

edit
  • Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale: I propose the deletion of these categories because they make no sense. Muwahiddism isn't a separate branch (like Sunni, Shia, Ibadi, Ahmadi, Quranism), it's not a fiqh school (like Hanafi/Shafii/Maliki/Hanbali divide among Sunnis), it's not an aqeeda school (like Athari/Maturidi/Ashari divide among Sunnis or Usuli/Akhbari divide among Twelver Shia) or anything.

Anyone who considers himself a Muslim (no matter what school he follows) considers himself a muwahhid (موحِّد) which means "a monotheist" in Arabic, literally a follower of tawhid (توحيد), monotheism, the central concept of Islam. It's just a term which is more often used as a self-description by Sunni Salafis to highlight their purism in contrast to anyone else (for example, Sufis have a practice of visiting graves of their sheikhs, Salafis see this act as a departure from the concept of tawhid in Islam. Although Sufis don't consider it as a violation of tawhid, they still see themselves as muwahhideen (monotheists). But anyone who claims to follow Islam, he by definition considers himself a muwahhid regardless). That's it. It's not a separate branch of Islam. It's just a "label" or a "trademark", so to speak. These categories are excessive and absolutely uncalled for. Sorry for bad formatting, by the way (I'm editing off my phone). Fixmaster (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, both articles in the tree are about Salafis and already categorized as such. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Socialist film directors

edit
Nominator's rationale: delete, intersection of unrelated characteristics. A few of these articles may be moved to a Category:Victims of McCarthyism, but that would be a very different discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian flour millers and merchants

edit
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. There's no parent category, and for the most part merchants aren't defined by whether they sold flour or not. Mason (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In Australia millers commonly purchase the grain, mill it, and sell the flour, adding value. So they're millers by trade, not merchants. Doug butler (talk) 03:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian commercial artists

edit
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining type of artist. Notably there is not a parent category of commercial artists as far as I can find. Mason (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Commercial artists create their art for mass duplication: advertising, souvenirs etc. Not like portraitists etc. Doug butler (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, it is almost impossible to differentiate notable artists by "commercial" as so many made a living out of it. If not merged, better rename it to something related to the kind of art. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian bigamists

edit
Nominator's rationale: There's no need to diffuse this category by nationality. Mason (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian event managers

edit
Nominator's rationale: I'm on the fence about speedying this category, however, I'm not 100% sure that I've correctly mapped this category to the right parent of event planning. Mason (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian metal workers

edit
Nominator's rationale: There are three ways this category can be handled. Either rename this to match the parent category of Metalworkers, merge to Australian metalsmiths‎ or rename to reflect that the intent of this category Metal manufacturing companies of Australia‎. Mason (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Artesian people

edit
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining for the only person in the category Maximilien Robespierre Mason (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for info, they are people from Artois (but I am not certain if Artesian is correct English). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Violence in the Palestinian territories

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge, all four articles in the category are about events after the establishment of the State of Palestine. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.
NLeeuw (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @@Marcocapelle: Do you think no category is needed for the broader Palestinian territories and the events before the state establishment? --Mhhossein talk 06:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly. Which articles are you thinking of in particular? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No special case at the moment, but there should be cases of violence ocurring in the Palestinian territories before the state establishment? --Mhhossein talk 06:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point. The State of Palestine didn't exist until 1988, while Palestinian territories have existed since 1967 (or 1949), depending on definition.VR (Please ping on reply) 09:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Romans from Africa

edit
Nominator's rationale: rename, many of these people were not Romans. Aligning this with e.g. Category:Roman-era people by ethnicity. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some more explicit support/opposition to various potential names for the categories would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian newspaper proprietors

edit
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. Mason (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three functions: Owner, publisher and editor. Often separated, for instance politicians may be newspaper owners but not publisher or editor. Influence without responsibility. Pastoralists may inherit a loss-making paper and subsidise its continued operation. Doug butler (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no other categories in this tree that make that distinction. Further, I'm pretty sure that there's a cfd that closed on similar newpaper owners, if I'm recalling. Mason (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, with many articles in both categories it is unclear whether they are about proprietors or about publishers without ownership. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian leather merchants

edit
Nominator's rationale: Do we really need to diffuse merchants by whether they sell leather? Mason (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like steel merchants, corn merchants, ship merchants, drapers and stockbrokers, it's a specialized trade. Doug butler (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to both the proposed target and appropriate subcategories of Category:Leather manufacturers or Category:Tanners. An odd category without a nonexistent main article and no others like it. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug butler Please make sure to have non-Australian parent categories, when you create similar categories. Mason (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I try. Doug butler (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]



June 12

edit

Category:Live at the Fillmore East albums

edit
Nominator's rationale: C2C — see subcategories in Category:Live albums by venue in the United States for similar examples. Trivialist (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Croat Roman Catholic clergy from Bosnia and Herzegovina

edit
Nominator's rationale: Ethnicization of entire tree of Category:Catholic clergy of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It's a one editor's attempt to squeeze ethnic labels onto categories regarding one of the religious communities of the country. It should be checked if this issue was already dealt with once before. Note that other two communities (Orthodox and Islamic) are categorized only with their respective denomination labels not with their eventual ethnicities. ౪ Santa ౪99° 16:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Croat Christian clergy from Bosnia and Herzegovina

edit
Nominator's rationale: Ethnicization of entire tree of Category:Catholic clergy of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It's a one editor's attempt to squeeze ethnic labels onto categories regarding one of the religious communities of the country. It should be checked if this issue was already dealt with once before. Note that other two communities (Orthodox and Islamic) are categorized only with their respective denomination labels not with their eventual ethnicities. ౪ Santa ౪99° 16:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it unhelpful that you have removed the parent categories. Now I can't easily see what the creator was trying to do, and whether it might be better to upmerge instead of delete. NLeeuw (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. ౪ Santa ౪99° 17:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Croat Greek Catholic clergy from Bosnia and Herzegovina

edit
Nominator's rationale: Ethnicization of entire tree of Category:Catholic clergy of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It's a one editor's attempt to squeeze ethnic labels onto categories regarding one of the religious communities of the country. It should be checked if this issue was already delt with once before. Note that other two communities (Orthodox and Islamic) are categorized only with their respective denomination labels not with their eventual ethnicities. ౪ Santa ౪99° 16:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it unhelpful that you have removed the parent categories. Now I can't easily see what the creator was trying to do, and whether it might be better to upmerge instead of delete. NLeeuw (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. ౪ Santa ౪99° 17:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 18:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was only one page in that category, which had no place there anyway. ౪ Santa ౪99° 18:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you could have tagged it CSD C1 instead of opening a discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's part of this tree that we are discussing so I presumed it wouldn't hurt to present it all three cats together. ౪ Santa ౪99° 08:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Legendary creatures

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, largely overlapping categories. I will tag both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. "Legendary" supposes that there might be some truth to it, but all contents here seem to fall outside of the realm of serious modern biology. NLeeuw (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At the moment, "Legendary" sits above "Folklore" and "Mythological creatures" - rather a lot of the contents of the first two should probably be moved to the last. As a matter of English meaning, I don't think "Legendary" supposes that there might be some truth to it" is at all true. "legendary" suggests to me a literary source(s) somewhere quite early on, & I think there is a distinction, if a rather vague one. Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment "legendary" sits above, but the hierarchy could just as well be reversed because there isn't a clear distinction. The fact that the above two editors disagree on what Legendary means illustrates the confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm not necessarily opposed to merging related folklore/legend/mythology categories together, I don't know which goes where. AHI-3000 (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I assume a redirect would be needed after merging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect certainly seems helpful, especially if we agree a merger is a good idea, but are in doubt about the best target. One way or the other, readers and editors will thus find their way. NLeeuw (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Legends are a distinct type of folklore, and place their narratives within human history. Dimadick (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge Per nom so that the original single category for this is restored, for the most part the contents of the category have nothing to do with being from folklore, and it's an WP:OVERLAPCAT anyway with folklore falling under the purview of legends. The article itself is Legendary creature. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Painters of the Holy Land pre-1948

edit
Nominator's rationale: I'm not really sure what to do with this category name, because it isn't particularly helpful/descriptive. Is this painters from after 1948 who painted the "holy land" or is it painters of what the "holy land" looked like after 1948. Mason (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on deletion/merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep' The nomination seems confused, perhaps fatally - the category is "PRE-1948" so it is not for "painters from after 1948 who painted the "holy land" or is it painters of what the "holy land" looked like after 1948." In the 19th-century context "Holy Land" is certainly the term that would have been used by the artists and their publics, & I don't think it is POV. If people want to delete it on those grounds they should think of alternatives, as it seems a valid category. Rather than being "an extremely narrow theme", it saw a big boom in the 19th century, partly as a branch of Orientalist painting. The category misses the most famous people, at least in the Anglosphere - where are William Holman Hunt, Edward Lear, James Tissot and many others? Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see only one of the 5 described as "Orientalist" (and Marcocapelle just categorised then as such). James Tissot is indeed a name I recognise as painting events from the Hebrew Bible, though not necessarily "the Holy Land". E.g. File:Tissot The Women of Midian Led Captive by the Hebrews.jpg supposedly took place in southern Transjordan in what is now Saudi Arabia.
Moreover, a lot of them were apparently Jewish, while "Holy Land" is a Christian term. It's really difficult to shape a category around such a vague concept with the people currently and proposed to be in there.
I should add that "Holy Land" can be an appropriate term if the subject in question is entirely Christian, for, by and about Christians, e.g. Recovery of the Holy Land. No other phrase will describe that late medieval Christian literary genre that aptly. But for these painters...? I'm not convinced. NLeeuw (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's highly unclear where the events of Numbers 31 took place (if anwhere), but it seems more likely to be in modern Israel or Jordan than Saudi. In any case, Tissot spent time in Palestine to get his settings right, without I think getting as far as modern Saudi. I don't think that a century ago "Holy Land" was exclusively a Christian term - it would be rather ironic if it was. Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Arabic Wikipedia ar:الأراضي المقدسة says: The Holy Land is a term used in the Christian and Jewish religions to refer to the holy places in Palestine, especially Jerusalem , Bethlehem, and Nazareth...
Hebrew Wikipedia he:ארץ הקודש says: Jews usually refer to the Land of Israel as the "Holy Land".[Source needed] However, the Bible refers to it explicitly as "holy land" in only one passage, the book of Zechariah, chapter 2, verse 16.
It doesn't seem like it is very common (at least not in the arguably main languages used by the most relevant religions and populations) to use the term "Holy Land" in Judaism or Islam. They may regard the land as sacred in some way, but calling it "Holy Land", capital H capital L, seems very much a Christian practice.
At any rate, if 19th-century and early 20th-century Orientalist is our scope, why not use the term Levant instead? It fits the period well, is broader than just Palesrael, and is not as politically and religiously charged. NLeeuw (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A fine piece of OR, & reliance on primary sources! You contradict your own research superbly there! "Jews usually refer to the Land of Israel as the "Holy Land"" and you conclude "It doesn't seem like it is very common (at least not in the arguably main languages used by the most relevant religions and populations) to use the term "Holy Land" in Judaism or Islam. They may regard the land as sacred in some way, but calling it "Holy Land", capital H capital L, seems very much a Christian practice." Wonderful! "Palestine" (much less controversial in this period, & the official name for some of it) would be better than "Levant". I don't mind splitting off the 2-3 proto-Israeli figures, who I agree are rather different. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, I'm not claiming this is in-depth research lol. Let's try something a bit more empirical:
  • Google Books search: landscape "orientalist paintings" "holy land": 2.110 results
  • Google Books search: landscape "orientalist paintings" "levant": 1.950 results
  • Google Scholar search: landscape "orientalist paintings" "holy land": 207 results
  • Google Scholar search: landscape "orientalist paintings" "levant": 223 results
Neither "holy land" or "levant" is particularly likely to be part of the title. Painting the Holy Land in the Nineteenth Century (1997) and Visions of the East: Influence of the Levant on the Italian Renaissance (2015) are two rare exceptions to this rule.
David Roberts is often mentioned, but more frequently with "Palestine" than with "Holy Land". His bio David Roberts (painter) uses the term "Holy Land" no fewer than 12 times, though usually in conjuction with other 'countries' around it: his travelogue The Holy Land, Syria, Idumea, Arabia, Egypt, and Nubia comprises about half of those mentions.
Gustav Bauernfeind (not yet in this category) is more usually associated with "Levant"; in fact, his bio has Gustav Bauernfeind#Painting the Levant, mentioning 'the Levant, the Orient, Ottoman Palestine, Jerusalem, Lebanon, Syria, the Holy Land'. Seems to me that Levant is the broadest, most encompassing and inclusive term of the two (or three if we count 'Palestine'). As it is broader, it could also include paintings of certain biblical narratives that are set in Transjordan (such as the one of Tissot referenced above), which may or may not be included under the term "Holy Land". It might be a good idea to add a catdesc that gives a description of what we mean by 'Levant', and the term 'Holy Land' does seem fitting there (amongst the other regions/countries I mention in this comment) instead of in the catname itself. Maybe that's an acceptable compromise? NLeeuw (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Something like catname: Category:Orientalist painters of the Levant
Catdesc:
This category is for Orientalist painters who created landscape paintings of the Levant (before 1948), including the Holy Land / Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Arabia (?), and Egypt.
Might that work? NLeeuw (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might (moving out the proto-Israelis), but I don't understand why people keep talking about "landscape" painters/paintings. Some, like Lear and Roberts, mostly were, but others, like Hunt and Tissot, concentrated on history paintings of Biblical narrative subjects, obviously many with landscape backgrounds. I'd still prefer Palestine to Levant. But I think it is important that we explicitly restrict the category to those who had actually spent time in the area, rather than working things up in Europe. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well because currently one of the parent categories is Category:Landscape painters. If that is incorrect, we should purge that parent. NLeeuw (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Polish social activists of the Prussian partition

edit
Nominator's rationale: This category should either be merged or renamed to make it clearer how this is defining. Mason (talk) 01:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This question is part of a wider issue concerning the categorisation of "Polish people" during the Partition period from 1795 to 1918. Last year I tried to address it, but no consensus emerged: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland/Archive 19#Categorisation of Category:Polish people of the partition period.
In short: we'll need to choose whether we mean "Polish" as an ethnicity (as Marcocapelle suggested), or as a nationality (as Mason is indirectly suggesting, since Category:Polish activists is in the Category:Activists by nationality tree). Ethnicity is always a difficult one to establish and results in lots of sourcing problems, and it means we can't put these people in the Category:Polish people tree (because it is part of the Category:People by nationality tree). So nationality seems the best approach. For our purposes here, the Prussian partition is best understood as the Grand Duchy of Posen, though it is a little more complicated than that (I'll get back to that).
But how do we grant a Polish "nationality" in a time when they did not have a state? My proposal was to recognise certain historic non-sovereign entities as "Polish":
 
1815:
  Grand Duchy of Posen (Prussian Partition)
  Congress Poland (Russian Partition)
  Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria (Austrian Partition)
  Free City of Kraków (independent until 1846)
Should we categorise all inhabitants of these polities as having "Polish nationality", or not? Currently, only inhabitants of Congress Poland and the preceding Duchy of Warsaw are deliberately categorised as Category:Polish people.
Until we resolve that question, it's probably difficult to do anything with these Polish Partition categories. We do not want to erase Polish history, but it's really challenging to categorise it either. NLeeuw (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Activists for Palestinian solidarity

edit
Nominator's rationale: This is a random mix of people who aren't activists. Purge the category and leave in actual activists. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I'm not too sure about it but maybe rename to "Pro-Palestinian activists". Any other suggestion would be helpful; this one seems rather vague. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to "Pro-Palestinian activists", if only because that new name would be shorter and simpler, yet also straight to the point. AHI-3000 (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait for some consensus here before I proceed with the subcategories. Honestly, going through them, I don't think any of these people in any of these categories were checked to see if they actually were activists for Palestinian solidarity, particularly given a number of these aren't pro-Palestinian but rather anti-Israeli. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer keeping this category, I should add, since there is a big Palestinian movement and activists who are pro-Palestinian. I just think we should be careful who to put in. Some of these "pro-Palestinian" people aren't pro-Palestinian at all. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think renaming it to "Advocates for Palestinian Solidarity" would be best. NesserWiki (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support doing something, but mixed on the alternative rename. I think that the "Pro-Palestinian activists" are indeed a more specific subgroup that are definitely nested within Anti-racist activists. Perhaps splitting or nesting/reorganizing to acknowledge that there are also activists for Palestinian civil rights etc. idk 🤷 It's really complicated.Mason (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smasongarrison, it is quite complicated, you're right. I'm not too sure about myself but, IMO and as you have said yourself, "Pro-Palestinian" is less vague and more definable than "Activists for Palestinian solidarity". Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair point. (To be clear, I'm not opposed to the rename if that's were consensus goes. ) I've started cleaning up the ethnic/religious intersections with the group in the hope that I'll have some inspiration. Mason (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smasongarrison, I only just noticed this and wanted to say thank you! Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge: a removal of articles about people who weren't activists is a no-brainer. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus on rename.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03, I would say leave the rename out for now. That can be done in a seperate Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Great Britain

edit
Nominator's rationale: Option A: remove header and a remove a number of parent categories. Option B: nominate subcategories for merger. In any case, the current content of the category is completely out of sync with how the category creator(s) intended. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, please clarify the issue with this particular category. I don't really follow. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just Delete & re-home articles as necessary. The period of the Kingdom of Great Britain - from 1707 to 1800, is not really used by historians or the public. If kept it should be more clearly named to avoid confusion with the (main) geographical meaning of Great Britain, which has clearly been taken by some adders as the intended meaning. In fact such a category might make more sense, at the top of trees with UK, English, Scottish & Welsh sub-cats. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman generals

edit
Nominator's rationale: Uphelpful bundling of Roman people. This category contains Ancient Romans and Byzantine people. Mason (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should have. It's not accurate to consider it a separate empire, historical revisionism.★Trekker (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but that's not really responsive to nom. It's not helpful to have a Category:Roman generals by century when there's not even a regular generals by century category.Mason (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Galician animated films

edit
Nominator's rationale: In accordance with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_3#Category:Galician_films. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Irish films" are not the same as "Irish (or Gaelic) language films" and that's why there are two different categories (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Irish_animated_films). For the same reason, "Galician films" (or "Galician animated films") are not the same as "Galician language films". Gasparoff (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep & oppose renaming per Mushy Yank and my own reasoning at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_3#Category:Galician_films. Most of these films are in Spanish and/or English, and renaming them will disqualify almost all of them from membership, leading to an underpopped cat that should be upmerged again. This proposal leads nowhere. (I've struck my earlier !vote as I've changed my mind). NLeeuw (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles involving the Qarmatians

edit
Nominator's rationale: These battles concern a specific subgroup of Qarmatians, namely those of the Qarmatian 'republic' of Bahrayn under the al-Jannabi family. This was the main Qarmatian group, but by no means the only one, and at any rate it should be distinguished. Other "Qarmatian" battles, like the Battle of Hama (even though the Qarmatian label is debatable here), are not included. Constantine ✍ 07:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor question: why Bahrayn instead of Bahrain? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because that is the most common transliteration in the literature. It also does not refer to the modern state of Bahrain, but the whole region of Eastern Arabia (historical Bahrayn/Bahrain). Constantine ✍ 14:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nom just created parent Category:Qarmatian state of Bahrayn 4 minutes before proposing to rename this child category. But the grandparent is Category:Qarmatians, and the main article is Qarmatians. Google-Booksing "Qarmatian state of Bahrayn" yields only 5 results. "Bahrain" is evidently the WP:COMMONNAME, there is no apparent need for this renaming, nor for the redundant new layer Category:Qarmatian state of Bahrayn created by nom. I suggest reverting to the situation of 3 June 2024. NLeeuw (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nom has actually worked on this topic and may be suggesting this move because of this knowledge, not just because of a flight of fancy. Qarmatianism is a broader phenomenon than the Qarmatian state of Bahrayn, hence the two should be kept separate, with the Qarmatians remaining as the overarching parent category/article. There ideally should be a different, dedicated parent article for the state, like ru:Карматское государство, but one thing at a time. Constantine ✍ 07:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are there "Battles involving the Qarmatians" that DON'T involve Bahrayn? Because if there aren't, I'm not sure this change is necessary. Liz Read! Talk! 17:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Main article Qarmatians has an Infobox former country and an Infobox war faction, both of which provide exactly the same beginning and end dates of 899–1077.
    It also claims that it all started with Bahrain and ended with Bahrain (or Bahrayn if you will):
    • Start: Eventually, from Qatar, he captured Bahrain's capital Hajr and al-Hasa in 899, which he made the capital of his state...
    • End: According to the maritime historian Dionisius A. Agius, the Qarmatians finally disappeared in 1067, after they lost their fleet at Bahrain Island and were expelled from Hasa near the Arabian coast by the chief of Banu, Murra ibn Amir.
    1067 may be a typo, as the rest of the article insists on 1077, referring to Overthrow of the Qarmatians, which is dated to 1058–1077.
    Finally, the example of Battle of Hama is so ambiguous as to what the "Qarmatians" have to do with it (which is discussed at length in the article itself, with good sources), that it cannot count as evidence for non-Bahraini "Qarmatians".
    In short, there seems to be no difference. NLeeuw (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crime action films

edit
Nominator's rationale: Hybrid genre term that is not in common usage (unlike lets say, action comedy or even action thriller). Searching for it on google, gives one imdb list, then several lists for one genre or the other. Per the action film article, "Action films often interface with other genres. Yvonne Tasker wrote that films are often labelled action thrillers, action-fantasy and action-adventure films with different nuances." Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I'd include the sub-categories within this general category again, but I suppose that is implied in this process. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating the following:

Does this do the job @Marcocapelle:? Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - large enough and common-enough to be kept. Netflix has a "Crime Action & Adventure Movies" category. Amazon has a "Best Sellers in Crime Action Fiction" category. The category structure is well-maintained & populated: ~400 pages, all of which contain crime.action|action.crime. Also, it sounds like nom might want to rename to "action-crime", which, if there's consensus for, would be preferable to deletion.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An anonymous sorting algorithm on netflix is not really a way to seriously categorize genre, same for the Amazon section which also appears to be sorting novels, not films. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest reading Action film#Hybrid genres before responding if possible. From academic points of view, categorizing genres by hybrids is not really useful on understanding what they are about and when they are applied by fans, journalists, historians etc., the terms are used vaguely and with various connotations to what the genre means. This is why having them categorized like this is not helpful. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "I would suggest reading Action film#Hybrid genres": you mean the part you added 3 hours before basing this CfD off of it?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This was a section added months ago, i've re-vised it on reading the source in question, which was selectively using what was sourced. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: Action films are synonymous with violence, and crime films are not complete without that. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning support, I can't really imagine crime films without action. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As said above, we don't really need a hybrid form of this per Crime action film. There is no set definition of hybrid genres and trying to view films as these hybrids is basically a fools errand. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is often the case that film genres are crossed over as catgeories that are not actually reflective of legitimate and verifiable sub-genres (such as "romantic comedy" or "horror comedy", for example). So is that the case here? I randomly plucked out some of the films in the category and the genre of "crime action" doesn't appear defining for any of them. The genre for Heat (1995 film) is sourced to Rotten Tomatoes which lists the genre as "crime, drama". The "crime action" genre for The Batman (film) is not supported by sources, and whilst Allmovie lists several genres (include crime and action) it does not list the sub-genre of "crime action", unlike Pretty Woman which lists Romance, Comedy and the combination "Romantic Comedy". The genre for The Girl in the Spider's Web (film) is also sourced to Allmovie (inaccurately I might add), and whilst it does not list "crime action" it does list "crime thriller". In these cases the presence of the article in the category appears to be the product of editorial synthesis, unsupported by sources i.e. it may be possible to source "action" or "crime" but "crime action" or "action crime" is not in itself sourced. Are any supporters of the category able to provide reliable source evidence for the films in this category belonging a sub-genre of "crime-action"? It may be possible to locate sources that substantiate the existence of the genre, but membership of a category also needs to satisfy WP:CATDEF too.
Betty Logan (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Existing genre that deserves a category. I completely disagree with the idea that crime films should always include action! Just because a film contains a murder does not make it an action film (nor a crime action film, for that matter). See:
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199587261.001.0001/acref-9780199587261-e-0165#:~:text=An%20extremely%20wide%2Dranging%20group,central%20element%20of%20their%20plots.
As for films defined as CA or C-A films, at random:
https://www.michigandaily.com/arts/film/the-roundup-a-womanless-riskless-ruthless-rush/
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/art/2024/06/398_356945.html
https://oxfordre.com/criminology/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-195 (mentioning Rush Hour as a c-a franchise), for example. A GB search shows various results for crime/action, which sometimes indicate it's a new genre: The hybrid nature – and commercial success – of the Bourne films is characteristic of a new style of crime film, the crime/action[1] but plenty with either "crime action films"(or film/movie) or "crime-action films". A note defining the genre as an hybrid could be added on the category page. (Have a look at the category in other languages).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term is without a doubt used in common place, but there is no solid definition for it, as the case for most hybrid genres. Why bother separating them? What does it add? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I can google the term and find people using it, but reading the actual article on action films it states very clearly that these types of terms are used with different values and meaning. There is no solid definition of these hybrid genres. Your Sarah Casey sources only emphasizes that yes, hybrid genres exist, but reading the wiki article, most films past the 90s are hybrids and there is no common meaning with this. As there are none, it fails WP:CATDEF. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Benyahia, Sarah Casey (2012-02-27). Crime. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-58182-3.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a distinctive genre in its own right. Dimadick (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional female entertainers

edit
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT, possibly some subcategories will merit a dual merge to Category:Fictional entertainers. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional children by occupation

edit
Nominator's rationale: Nominating this again, this time for merge. Right now it is a WP:NARROWCAT with only two subcategories. It might need to be dual merged, but either way it is clearly unnecessary with so few subcategories ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, didn't we go through this same shit before? And there were more categories in here before. AHI-3000 (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to be rude and hostile, and most of the subcategories were removed for being blatantly incorrect so it's a different situation than last time. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The old nomination was Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_18#Category:Fictional_children_by_occupation. And now there are four subcategories. The only contents at the time of this nomination were Category:Fictional child prostitutes and Category:Fictional child soldiers; the other two, I thought we agreed to remove (alogn with two others) at the end of the last CfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they were re-added post nomination, but consensus agreed they did not belong in this category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, redundant category layers with only two subcategories. I am discounting the two subcategories that were purged after the previous discussion as they do not belong here. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Invasions of the Dutch Republic

edit
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now per WP:MFN, as both cats have only 2 items, one of which doesn't apply (Johann Friedrich von Salm-Grumbach isn't an invasion but an officer who participated). Only upmerge to Category:Invasions of former countries and Category:Invasions by former countries, respectively; Prussian invasion of Holland is already in all other parents. NLeeuw (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed Johann Friedrich von Salm-Grumbach from the categories. Merge in principle, but the target categories sound a bit like they should be container categories. Merging to Category:Invasions could also be an option. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They do sound a bit like containercats, but if we treat them like that, it forces us to either upmerge articles, or diffuse articles and create small cats, for which we would need to upmerge them again, but two levels. Hence a bit of pragmatism seems called for until we've got more options. NLeeuw (talk) 06:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Invasions of the Republic of Genoa

edit
Nominator's rationale: 1 P, 0 C. Dual upmerge for now per WP:MFN. Category:Invasions of Italy does not apply, since Italy as a state did not exist at the time, and Corsica is not part of Italy today. NLeeuw (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pretenders to the Albanian throne

edit
Nominator's rationale: WP:OR WP:NPOV. Follow-up to deletion of Line of succession to the former Albanian throne, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Albanian throne. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretenders to the throne of Mexico, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretenders to the throne of Parma, and User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Pretenders#NLeeuw category list. NLeeuw (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa, Agricolae, Balle010, Oleryhlolsson, JoelleJay, Smeat75, Johnpacklambert, Devokewater, and Hut 8.5: courtesy ping to participants in previous discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Albanian throne for follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pretenders to the Mexican throne

edit
Nominator's rationale: WP:OR WP:NPOV WP:BLP (Maximilian von Götzen-Iturbide states: Götzen does not pursue any claim to the throne...Despite Götzen not actively pursuing any claim himself, social media users claiming to be Mexican monarchists have posted their support of his claim., therefore also WP:NONDEFINING). Follow-up to recent deletion of main article Pretenders to the Mexican throne, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretenders to the throne of Mexico. See also User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Pretenders#NLeeuw category list.
Some deceased people in this category also appear to be inappropriately labelled pretenders:

Category:Whitewashing in film

edit
Nominator's rationale: WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Populated by tangentially related films and not articles from the main topic. Gotitbro (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as I am not sure what you mean by “tangential” as all of the categorised films has an element of whitewashing that is discussed in Whitewashing in film article or mentioned in the film page itself using reliable sources. Take the film Khartoum (film), with blackface white actors which is discussed in the “Reception” section. It does not get more direct than that.
FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps should have worded that nomination better. What I meant was with categories such as these, the expectation is that there will be articles dedicated to the topic not articles mostly about films which only contain an element of the said cat.
I am coming at this from a recent discussion about a similar topic: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Subcategories of Category:Film controversies by country. Gotitbro (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but that is not the policy you have cited and the example you have cited is irrelevant as I said, these instances of whitewashing are discussed using reliable sources.
This is more like your personal preference and expectations which is not supported by policies. A Cat need to be a characteristic of the subject as described in reliable sources see WP:CATDEF. FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional millers

edit
Nominator's rationale: Does not actually contain fictional millers, just works. Basically WP:SHAREDNAME. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per rationale. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional cafeteria workers

edit
Nominator's rationale: This is a rather small and narrow category with no real-life equivalent. We don't need a hyperspecific category for literally every job. Edit: Actually it should probably just be deleted, when you remove Chef from South Park, who is already under "Fictional chefs", there is nothing pertinent here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as Chef (South Park) is already in a reasonable subcat for the merge target. All that remains after that is a redirect and an article that should not be on the category tree. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional extraterrestrial royalty

edit
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT made by blocked user. The "princesses" category should also be dual merged to Category:Fictional extraterrestrial characters. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This was last nominated in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_16#Category:Fictional_extraterrestrial_royalty. I no longer agree with my old rationale, because while there is room for expansion using existing articles, there is nothing to justify separating aliens from fantasy-world inhabitants, or even from the royals of fictional countries on Earth.
There is no need to merge Category:Fictional extraterrestrial royalty to Category:Fictional royalty because the only contents are a redirect; Category:Fictional extraterrestrial princesses, which is also in this CfD; and Category:Galactic emperors, which is already in a different subcategory of the target. I don't think the Galactic emperors is in another subcategory of Category:Fictional extraterrestrial characters, so we can merge there. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mythological male/female royalty

edit
Nominator's rationale: Yet another WP:NARROWCAT pointless category. This is such a narrow intersection (mythical + gender + royalty) that a category is not necessary. I don't believe it should be merged to "fictional" as myth and fiction are separate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Triple upmerge nominee 2 to Category:Fictional female royalty, Category:Mythological royalty, and Category:Women in mythology.
Nom is right that having categories with just 2 subcategories isn't very useful for navigation, but we should upmerge to all parents. NLeeuw (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fiction may overlap with mythology in some cases but the two are distinct concepts. Mythology can also contain embellished or rumored versions of real events. The Bible has mythological elements, but most would not agree it is a pure "work of fiction". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. NLeeuw (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nominated. Concur with nominator about the distinction between mythology and fiction. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms economists

edit
Nominator's rationale: delete, despite what the article says this is not about an economist. It is more like a minister of finance, so the article is alright in Category:Later Tang government officials. If not deleted, then merge to Category:Chinese economists. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Buddhist monks

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:NARROWCAT, very detailed categorization by religion, occupation, and parallel kingdoms/dynasties in a relatively short period. The Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms lasted from 907 to 960. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom for now without prejudice. Glad my suggestion some time ago is taken up. NLeeuw (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Socialists by occupation

edit
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure how helpful it is to have a socialists by occupation category. Mason (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, redundant category layer with only three subcategories. I also wonder whether we should keep two of the three subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional chimney sweepers

edit
Nominator's rationale: Most articles in here are works of media, which don't belong here anyway, while the one character that does can be merged to Category:Fictional domestic workers. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and recategorize per nom. The category does not contain what it says to contain. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century Tasmanian architects

edit
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge this isolated category Mason (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Lithuania (1569–1795)

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge, the two categories cover nearly the same period. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - early modern age in Lithuania according to my knowledge starts a century before 1569 (if we take 1453 as the starting year of early modern age). Seems a bit much to make out those to be identical.--+JMJ+ (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Around 1500 is most often mentioned as the start of the early modern age and articles about the period between 1500 and 1569 can still be put in the early modern category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Marco. "1453" is a bit arbitrary, as it takes the fall of Constantinople as the measure of world history, instead of a rather minor event that was bound to happen to a Byzantine Empire in terminal decay for centuries. "1500" may also be arbitrary as a random round number, but at least it does not assign an arbitrary value of significance to any event, and it has been a commonly used convention in historiography. For Lithuania, of course, 1569 is much more significant, but given that we've already got 2 categories and it doesn't make sense to create separate categories for 1500 to 1568, and 1796 to 1799. NLeeuw (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PAW Patrol (franchise)

edit
Nominator's rationale: Uncategorized duplicate category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The TV series (currently at Category:PAW Patrol), and the franchise are not the same thing. See also Talk:PAW_Patrol#Split_and_move_proposal. Gonnym (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both into Category:PAW Patrol - This situation reminds me of similar franchises like Category:SpongeBob SquarePants and Category:Avatar: The Last Airbender. This way, there is also reasonably enough articles for a category. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will note that Category:PAW Patrol is the originally-proposed merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or reverse merge, too little content for two categories. Technical note, if it is going to be a downmerge then parent categories have to be added to the target manually. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the League of Women Voters

edit
Nominator's rationale: Simple membership in the League of Women Voters is non-defining. User:Namiba 15:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many siblings contain (just) activists, which is much more defining than membership. We might rename and purge this one as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on renaming and purging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean towards merge. Given that it's not very defining by itself. Mason (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose given that both nominee and target are very large categories, and no navigational value seems to be served by throwing them together. NLeeuw (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coke Studio (franchise)

edit
Nominator's rationale: Probably unnecessary disambiguation. This is missing a parent article about the franchise as a whole, or the original Brazilian series. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: Category:Coke Studio (the proposed rename target) exists. Do you mean merge? HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 22:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please merge. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or reverse merge, it is unclear why these two categories exist next to each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Character songs

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category hardly has any entries, with Megalovania being more of a theme song than "sung by the voice actor", of which there is none. The current category members could be merged to parent categories if they aren't in them already. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, only one of the two non-main articles is about something that actually belongs. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


June 11

edit

Category:Cute 'em ups by series

edit
Nominator's rationale: It only has 2 subcategories WP:SMALLCAT. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, WP:SMALLCAT is no longer active, but still this is a redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kurdish physicists

edit
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Narrow intersection for small category, which isn't helpful for navigation. There's not even a Kurdish biologist category, so why would we need a subfield? Mason (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jeremy Jordan (singer) albums

edit
Nominator's rationale: Currently a redirect to Category:Jeremy Jordan (singer, born 1973) albums. Goes against the disambiguation scheme seen at Jeremy Jordan/Jeremy Jordan (singer). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medieval Kurdish philosophers

edit
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's no need to diffuse the Kurdish philosophy category by period. There are only 9 people in the entire tree (at the time of nomination). Mason (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Ages by country

edit
Nominator's rationale: rename. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 25#Early modern period, where we decided to rename all categories to Early modern history of Fooland. Renaming could avoid a lot of anachronisms about modern countries that did not yet exist as such, or not with their modern-day borders, or at least not under their modern names, in the Middle Ages. It's also a lot like how we are currently reframing battles in (former country/region) to military history of (current country/region). There may also be a need to harmonise the categories further according to either one of the following options:
  1. Medieval history of Fooland per precedent Early modern history of Fooland, and indirectly the Military history of Fooland precedents – a WP:C2C argument. It has a few main articles as well, such as Medieval history of Nepal, or the variation History of medieval Tunisia, History of medieval Cumbria, or Political history of medieval Karnataka. But other than that, it has no strong basis in the article space.
  2. Fooland in the Middle Ages per a lot of main articles, including some directly in this category: Cyprus in the Middle Ages, England in the Middle Ages, Ethiopia in the Middle Ages, Scotland in the Middle Ages, Wales in the Middle Ages, Netherlands in the Early Middle Ages etc. – a WP:C2D argument. (Sidenote: Middle Ages in Fooland is a rare variation of this, apparently only followed by Early Middle Ages in Azerbaijan and High Middle Ages in Azerbaijan; these should probably be renamed per WP:TITLECON, as Azerbaijan in antiquity already is). It strikes me that most of these ...in the Middle Ages articles are about the British Isles or about other islands or peninsulas that are geographically relatively distinct and well-defined, as opposed to landlocked countries without clear geological and geographical boundaries, which always risks confusion and disagreement, so this formula might not work everywhere. It will not be consistent with our recent renaming of Early modern history of Fooland either, and we might have to revisit it.
  3. Medieval Fooland: one option is to keep the current category names, but seek to change the main article titles instead, per a small minority of main articles, such as Medieval India, Medieval Croatia, Medieval Armenia, Medieval Jerusalem, Medieval Corsica, and some derivatives like Norman and medieval London or Europeans in Medieval China, Slavery in medieval Europe. This would save us a lot of trouble renaming categories, it just adds to our trouble of renaming articles, which is a different projectspace. And although it is more concise, this option does not have my preference, because it makes the anachronism problem much worse. It will not be consistent with our recent renaming of Early modern history of Fooland either, and we might have to revisit it. But for the sake of completeness, I do offer it for your consideration.
  4. Other options???
I will add targets to the nomination when the preferred target name becomes a bit more clear in the discussion. NLeeuw (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to participants of previous discussion: @Marcocapelle, Smasongarrison, Ham II, Omnis Scientia, and HouseBlaster: for your consideration. NLeeuw (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for this big nomination and elaborate rationale. Option 3 is clearly a no-go for reasons already outlined. Initially I thought I'd have a clear preference for option 1 but at second thought I no longer see a good reason why, they each have their own pros. So either option 1 or 2. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome, and thank you for paving the way with the early modern period precedent, as well as voicing your support earlier today when I asked your advice. I also thought this was gonna be a lot easier beforehand, but there is a substantial number of Fooland in the Middle Ages articles that gave me pause. In the end, the article space should always be prioritised over the category space, and WP:C2D will almost always be a stronger argument than WP:C2C. So I've currently got a slight preference for option 2 over option 1, but it's close. I hope others can persuade us to a better perspective. NLeeuw (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: One reason why the ...in the Middle Ages might be so popular, whereas ...in the early modern period is essentially unheard of, might be because we often speak and think of the Middle Ages as a "place" rather than a time. Say "Middle Ages" or "medieval", and someone else may soon imagine castles and catapults, convents and chronicles, commerce and crusaders. But if someone says "early modern", I struggle a lot more to paint a picture for myself of what that time looked like, and to imagine it as a "place" where people walked around. Strange thing how that works linguistically. Not sure if I'm the only one? But that might help to explain why these articles and categories are titled so differently. NLeeuw (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles involving Germanic peoples

edit
Nominator's rationale: rename and purge, this is follow-up on many earlier renames, and there is e.g. parent Category:Early Germanic warfare. Ancient Germanic peoples is a commonly used grouping in the Roman era but not so much in the middle ages. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former synagogues Nebraska

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category should be renamed to match others in Category:Former synagogues in the United States by state Pretzelles (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename WP:C2C. NLeeuw (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per WP:C2C. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per both C2A and C2C. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: As the originator of the category, I clearly made a typo. Thanks for picking it up. Rangasyd (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former synagogues Wisconsin

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category should be renamed to match others in Category:Former synagogues in the United States by state Pretzelles (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename WP:C2C. NLeeuw (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per WP:C2C Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per both C2A and C2C. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: As the originator of the category, I clearly made a typo. Thanks for picking it up. Rangasyd (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bond (string quartet)

edit
Nominator's rationale: With subcategories only for the quartet's albums and their covers, the eponymous category is unnecessary per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles involving the Nizari Ismaili state

edit
Nominator's rationale: 1 P. WP:MFN. Can't find other battles, so merging to wars seems the best option. NLeeuw (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete, the latter because the article seems to imply that the Nizari Ismaili state was not really involved. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Central March

edit
Nominator's rationale: 1 P. Just delete, not useful for navigation. Main article Central March is already in both parents, and the only article Wadih al-Siqlabi is a biography that fits neither parent. NLeeuw (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. In addition, governor of the Central March seems to be a relatively minor position, not contributing much to the notability of the subject of the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vassal rulers of the Umayyad Caliphate

edit
Nominator's rationale: 2 P. WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Just delete. Whether someone was a "vassal" or not can be quite arbitrary, and neither of the parent cats really applies: these princes of Armenia were not "people from the Umayyad Caliphate" or part of its government. At most, they were part of its foreign relations. As the catdesc indicates, these were not 'caliphal-appointed governors', and therefore not part of the internal governance. NLeeuw (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Vassal rulers are easily distinguished by the fact that they bore princely rather than gubernatorial titles and were usually hereditary and at least somewhat autonomous. They are also clearly designated as such by modern scholarship. Armenia was very much part of the Umayyad Caliphate, just as much as the Khanate of Khiva was of the Russian Empire or the various Indian princes were of the British Raj. Constantine ✍ 16:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, princes aren't necessarily vassals and it is not very clear from these articles that the subjects were in fact vassals. The articles are already in appropriate Armenian and monarchs categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Government of the Ayyubid Sultanate

edit
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Both child cats area already in Category:People from the Ayyubid Sultanate, and both articles could easily be put in parent Category:Ayyubid Sultanate (5 P, 2 of which are redirects). NLeeuw (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The category is part of a wider category family on governments of historical states. What exactly is the gain of deleting it and upmerging, that is enough to counterbalance the loss in categorization? There are likely even more articles already on WP that can be added there, and certainly still more that can be written, as the topic is under-represented. Constantine ✍ 16:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Easy navigation. NLeeuw (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The two articles aren't really about government of the Ayyubid Sultanate, they are about the outskirts of it. If anything, they are about social geography rather than about government, but having them simply in the main category is even better. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good points. NLeeuw (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Government of the Samanid Empire

edit
Nominator's rationale: 1 P, 1 C. Just delete as a redundant layer, while manually moving Ispahsalar (only article) to Category:Samanid Empire; only child is already in Category:People from the Samanid Empire. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 2#Category:Government of the Seljuk Empire (also Timurid, Ghaznavid, Aq Qoyunlu govts). NLeeuw (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly move the article to Category:Samanid Empire but that is not even very necessary because the article is not specifically about the Samanid Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah it's not even necessary to move the article, but I wouldn't object to it. NLeeuw (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ambassadors of the Republic of Venice to the Kingdom of Sardinia

edit
Nominator's rationale: 1 P, 0 C. WP:MFN. There are many, many underpopulated (1 to 4 P) ambassador cats like this created in February–May 2024 by the same person. Others were created longer ago. NLeeuw (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The category is not arbitrary and has clearly room of expansion, as the Republic of Venice and the Kingdom of Sardinia overlapped by several centuries. If the category exists, articles will be added to it. If it is deleted, they won't; not many WP members are actively engaged in categorization. If a reader, like myself, is interested in the bilateral relations between Venice and specific other states, why should they go hunting in more generic categories? This equally applies to the other 'underpopulated categories' mentioned in the nomination. I really don't understand what the project gains from deletions like this. Constantine ✍ 16:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of categories is easy navigation between articles. Categories in categories in categories which contain only 1 article do not ease navigation. NLeeuw (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per nom. One may be interested in this intersection, sure, but if there aren't any other articles then the most closely related articles are in the more general categories and merging helps navigation to them. Of course, no objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. There categories are indeed extremely underpopulated, and often isolated from where readers expect to see them (somewhere in the modern country category typically). Mason (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SaarLorLux Open

edit
Nominator's rationale: Per the current article name Solidest (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, rename. --Florentyna (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Government of the Almohad Caliphate

edit
Nominator's rationale: Redundant layers. Category:Officials of the Almohad Caliphate is already in the target category, and Category:Almohad caliphs should also be, but isn't yet. Category:Governors of the Almohad Caliphate is the only subcat of Category:Officials of the Almohad Caliphate, and apart from Ibn Tufayl, it has no contents, so "Officials" is also a redundant layer. (I was able to populate Category:Governors of the Almohad Caliphate from 2 to 6 p, so no reason to upmerge that one yet). Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 2#Category:Government of the Seljuk Empire (also Timurid, Ghaznavid, Aq Qoyunlu govts). NLeeuw (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. There isn't any topic article about government and biography subcats are perfectly fine under people. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Government of the Khwarazmian Empire

edit
Nominator's rationale: Just delete as a redundant layer; only child is already in Category:People from the Khwarazmian Empire. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 2#Category:Government of the Seljuk Empire (also Timurid, Ghaznavid, Aq Qoyunlu govts). NLeeuw (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. There isn't any topic article about government and the biography subcat is perfectly fine under people. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by ethnic descent

edit
Nominator's rationale: These categories are for people of different ethnic descents. There is nothing here specific to any particular continent. Additionally, the names might wrongly imply that this is the person's own ethnicity when, in reality, it refers to their ancestors' ethnicity. Aldij (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auto racing teams

edit
Extended content
Nominator's rationale: Most of these categories were speedily renamed to their current names from the proposed names in May 2023. Discussions at the Formula One WikiProject and the Motorsport WikiProject resolved that these speedy renames should be reversed because, unlike many other sporting teams, auto racing teams may compete all over the world and their national identity is defined by their racing licence and is not necessarily related to the location of their base of operations. Consider the current Formula One World Champions: Red Bull Racing - they are universally recognised as an Austrian team (they use an Austrian racing licence and when they win a race, the Austrian national anthem is played) but their base of operations is in England. The category rename in May 2023 moved the article from the accurate Category:Austrian auto racing teams to the inaccurate Category:Auto racing teams in Austria. DH85868993 (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gilgit-Baltistan stubs

edit
Nominator's rationale: delete or merge, poorly populated stub category and we do not have any similar Pakistani province stub categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient tribes in Ukraine

edit
Nominator's rationale: 2 P, 0 C. WP:MFN Upmerge for now without prejudice. NLeeuw (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gilgit-Baltistan history stubs

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge, poorly populated stub categories and we usually do not have stub history categories by Pakistani province. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Events at the Amway Center

edit
Nominator's rationale: I don't believe Wikipedia categorizes events by venue? Gjs238 (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikipedia does, in fact, categorize events by venue. Abhiramakella (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Galician films

edit
Nominator's rationale: Appears to be redundant? Gjs238 (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Irish films" is not the same as "Irish (or Gaelic) language films" and that's why there are several different categories (Category:Irish films by language). For the same reason, "Galician films" (or "Galician animated films") are not the same as "Galician language films". Gasparoff (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete, articles are already in Category:Galician-language films if applicable, but it is not always applicable. Some of these films are Spanish-speaking. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete insofar there seems to be no intent to connect category to cogent production criteria pertaining the Galician regional film industry (possibly not easy for most Wikipedia users to crack at the subnational level anyways), but to a moot "Galician context", category is not really useful pursuant to the current existence of Category:Galician-language films and Category:Films set in Galicia (Spain).--Asqueladd (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. Take Midsummer Dream it's a Galician film in English and Spanish (not to mention the fact that some films in Galician are not Galician films, just like many films in English are not English films or films in Tamil are not all made in Tamil Nadu). See Category:Catalan films, a very similar category, that exists and does not only contain films in Catalan. (But the category needs cleanup).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I do not have an opinion on whether we should have categories for films by autonomous community of Spain, but assuming we will keep them, it is desirable that we make these catnames less ambiguous. The comparison with Catalan and Catalan-language films also shows this.
We could develop a new convention like Films in Fooian (see the recent Songs in Fooian precedents) versus Films from Fooland (see the recent People from Fooland precedents), but such a decision would have broad implications for our current category structures. Nevertheless, given how often ambiguous adjectives like "Galician" lead to confusion, and recent precedents have developed solutions to avoid such confusion, this seems the best way forward. NLeeuw (talk) 10:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:North-America-cricket-ground-stub

edit
Nominator's rationale: Used on only 3 articles. Merge the category to Category:North American sports venue stubs. Follow-up CfD to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_26#Category:North_American_sports_venue_stubs. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on FL's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per Fayenatic london. As said, pages should mostly be directly in a country stub category. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Circassia

edit
Nominator's rationale: This newly created uncategorized category seems redundant with Category:Circassians. Gjs238 (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on renaming?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:This TV affiliates

edit
Nominator's rationale: Network is now defunct Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if Mvcg66b3r can provide reliable sources for this claim. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep. But why delete. Being defunct isn't a reason to delete. We'd have to delete Category:Roman Empire, using that logic. Mason (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Smasongarrison: Category:Roman Empire is an encyclopedically relevant topic for historians, Category:This TV affiliates is not comparable in that sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was the OP's argument was not compelling by itself because that would mean that anything defunct would be worth deleting. (I picked the Roman Empire because it was obviously worth keeping, but would fail using op's argument) Mason (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean keep Main article This TV does not say anywhere explicitly that the network is defunct, just that its website went down in May 2024. Secondly, this category has a main article, List of This TV affiliates, implying that this subject qualifies for a stand-alone page. Personally, I think that article is poorly sourced, and perhaps it should be AfD'd, which would open the way for a deletion of this category. But until that happens, I don't see a compelling reason to delete the category just yet. NLeeuw (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles involving ancient peoples

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge, no clear distinction versus its parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wesley L. McDonald Distinguished Statesman and Stateswoman of Aviation Award

edit
Nominator's rationale: Not even sure if this meets the criteria for a defining characteristic. Gjs238 (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably the most prominent award for civil aviation that exists in the United States. It more than a defining characteristic. Nayyn (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting this?
It discourages people from contributing to Wikipedia when you delete for absolutely no reason. Nayyn (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


June 10

edit

Category:Gaborone task force

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 deleted as G7. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (🏳️‍⚧️ • 🏳️‍🌈) 23:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only contains an empty subcat; Wikipedia:WikiProject Botswana/Gaborone task force was G7ed Queen of Hearts (🏳️‍⚧️ • 🏳️‍🌈) 22:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok i’ll g7 this too 48JCL TALK 22:40, 10 June 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:Fan translation of video games

edit
Nominator's rationale: Although this category's name was copied from the article Fan trasnlation of video games, this category lists individual games that were fan-translated. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ex-Muslims

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only an eponymous category and a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main article is Ex-Muslims. ”apostate is a pejorative label and is meant to reflect the sense of betrayal felt by those who remain members of the religion”. [1] --Thi (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok does the category exist because of discontent with the name of the parent category? Apostasy in Islam is commonly defined as the abandonment of Islam by a Muslim, in thought, word, or through deed. There is nothing pejorative about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Apostasy" is per se pejorative. Not sure how you didn't know that. Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Berber former Christians

edit
Nominator's rationale: delete for now, single-article category, which is not helpful for nomination. No need to merge, the article is already in Category:Algerian former Christians. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should this be merged to Category:Berber Christians? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of film festivals in Oceania

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category which exists solely to hold one list at the same level of differentiation. This would be fine if one or more Oceanian countries had their own separate standalone lists independently of the continent-wide list, but none do, so the list does not need an "eponymous" category just to recursively contain itself if there are no supplementary sublists for specific Oceanian countries to file along with it.
The list, further, was left double-filed in all of the parent categories alongside this, so no upmerging is needed. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian police chiefs

edit
Nominator's rationale: Inline with article names. GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not all of them held the title of commissioner. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of awards received by Ugandan writer

edit
Nominator's rationale: Newly created 1-article category. Gjs238 (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of awards received by Ugandan film director

edit
Nominator's rationale: Newly created 1-article category. Gjs238 (talk) 12:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Society of Kurdistan

edit
Nominator's rationale: Similar categories in Category:Society by ethnicity are named in this manner. Kurdistan is a very roughly defined region. Please note that the category was previously moved speedy from 'Kurdish society'. Aldij (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battles in Spain 2

edit

Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. See Germany, Italy etc. NLeeuw (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aunty Disco Project

edit
Nominator's rationale: With the albums appropriately categorized by Category:Albums by artist and the only other article a discography page, this is an unnecessary eponymous category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unreal Engine 5 games

edit
Nominator's rationale: Duplicative with Category:Unreal Engine games. No merge required, as all members of the nominated category are in the original already. Each version of Unreal Engine is not independently notable or distinct. -- ferret (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree because Category:Unreal Engine games is very large and spans more than two decades of video games. There isn't much use in knowing that a game was made with "just" Unreal Engine from the point of view of someone reading about the game compared to knowing that it was made in Unreal 5 which tells you a lot more about what you can expect from the game both in terms of graphics and gameplay (that is, within a given specific genre). Similarly, there isn't much use in knowing a game was made in "just" Unreal from the point of view of someone reading about Unreal itslef as nobody develops games in "Unreal Engine." Consider also that the Video Game infobox Engine field usually has the Unreal Engine version listed, not just "Unreal Engine", because just listing "Unreal Engine" is not so useful. Each version of Unreal is a separate piece of software. Also, not all members of the nominated category are in the original already (at least at the time that I added some of them).
As a separate but related point, I feel that all versions of Unreal Engine should be separate articles on Wikipedia. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I propose instead of deleting the category, it should be a sub-category under Category:Unreal Engine games. In fact, I think the all the pages under this category also should be sorted by Unreal Engine type, i.e. UE1, UE2, UE3 and UE4. This rationale is made since the list of games for each Unreal Engine version is deleted, and there should be categories that list by version to clean up Category:Unreal Engine games. Otherwise the alternative is to simply delete Category:Unreal Engine games. ~ Limyx826 (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The separate versions pretty much characterize the games, comparing to just "Unreal Engine", given its existence for many years. The UE versions are quite different from each other, both in terms of development and end result. They all have their own separate version tree as well, so I would even say to some extent these are the different engines under the same brand name. The versions are also extensively covered in the sources, just as the versions for individual games are often supported by sources and are listed in the infobox. There may not be enough material for individual articles (needs to be verified), but there is enough material to split up this clogged category. The difference between the versions is enormous and obvious to anyone who follows the industry, and generally useful to any reader. Practically, you'll have little use for the information that Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (video game) and Tekken 8 were made on the same engine. But looking at them as separate versions is already a defining characteristic - WP:DEFINING. The distinct version categories also correspond better to WP:CATDD, which explicitly states to use the most specific categories.Therefore, I support splitting c:Unreal Engine games into 5 subcategories with gradual moving of articles to corresponding versions and turning the main category into a meta category. On Russian Wikipedia it really looks much cleaner and more informative than the endless listing we have now. Solidest (talk) 05:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Either we get rid of the "Unreal Engine games" category entirely, or this should stay. Unreal Engine 5 is absolutely distinct from something like the original Unreal Engine, to the point that it's essentially two separate pieces of software sharing a similar name. The argument that they are the same thing doesn't hold water from either a technical or a visual standpoint. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female drug traffickers

edit
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between gender, criminal, and specific kind of crime committed. I don't think that this holds up under WP:EGRS. Mason (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, how is this any less defining than other subcategories of Category:Female criminals? AHI-3000 (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick: What do you think of this? AHI-3000 (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, it is hardly ever a defining intersection. That is why we have WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this any less defining than other subcategories for female criminals? AHI-3000 (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Feel free to nominate the sibling categories too. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not at all what I'm implying. AHI-3000 (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Question: Can any of the opposers (@AHI-3000@Dimadick) make the case that this specific intersection with gender and type of crime is actually defining per EGRS? No one is saying that crime and gender isn't defining, but I struggle to see how this specific crime type is defining. Mason (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For those in favor of getting rid of the category, what should it be replaced with? Single merge? Double merge? Split? For those in favor of keeping the category, evidence that this is defining?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Accidents during the New Year celebrations

edit
Nominator's rationale: Non defining itnersection between day of the year and nature of the event Mason (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one article, and no parallel subcategories. We also Category:Attacks during the New Year celebrations, which is being speedy renamed to remove a misused definite article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


June 9

edit

Category:Ipswich town preachers

edit
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category that is effectively is the same. Mason (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Propose capitalisation: move Category:Ipswich town preachers to Category:Ipswich Town Preachers. When this category entered the jigsaw world of signs, known as wikipedia, it was unclear whether the category should use uppercase letters to initialise not merely Ipswich, but also "Town Preacher". The Oxford Academic use lower case, but local historian John Blatchly goes for uppercase. I think the advantage of this that it is clear that this refers to people who held a formal role, rather than a simply being a wikipedia category that lists Clergy from Ipswich. Often Ipswich Corporation appointed people from elsewhere. Bearing in mind the significance of some of those who occupied this role such as Samuel Ward (minister) or Cave Beck, it would seem appropriate to have such a category. I feel that capitalisation will indicate the category is more formal/historical. Leutha (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I've reverted your unexplained removal of this category from the proposed merge target. How is this category not Clergy from Ipswich? And why is the current category parented by 17th-century clergy. Mason (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen from the discussion above, the category is quite formal. Many people filing this role were not from Ipswich: Samuel Ward (minister) was from Haverhill, Matthew Lawrence (preacher) was from North Lincolnshire, Cave Beck was from London. The references for the Town Preachers are largely consistent from 1604, G. R.Clarke gives a list of 7 before 1604 in his 1830 The history and description of the town and borough of Ipswich : 343 . However only one appears in Blatchly's list in his book on The Town Library of Ipswich (1989): 177 . Any suggestions as regards how to handle the earlier individuals such as Roger Kelke, the Marian exile who returned to become Ipswich Town Preacher from 1560 until 1575, according to Blatchly? ibid : 4 . Leutha (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok... so it sounds like this information would be better served as a list. Categories are supposed to be there to help people navigate between pages. I would *strongly* encourage you to look at how other categories handle clergy from a region.
It seems like you are under the impression that People from a city is only for people who were born from the city. That's too narrow of a definition, as Bishops of CITY/ diocese are placed within the clergy from CITY/REGION etc category. And, so if I am understanding your very long comment, you're added the parent because there's only one example of of a precher from before the 17th century, but you don't speak to what about after the 17th century. Mason (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:15, 23 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/they) 23:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former high schools in Tokyo

edit
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. No need to diffuse highschools within a specific populated place and status (Defunct vs current; note that one of the targets is currently being speedy renamed from Category:Former high schools in Japan) Mason (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was apparently missing the difference between "Tokyo" and "Japan" :-( Marcocapelle (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Tokyo is equivalent to a prefecture, not a city, in a manner like a U.S. state. I'm not sure if this would make the category more viable, or if there should still be a split? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 23:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:12th-century Arab historians

edit
Nominator's rationale: Isolated category. Upmerge to 12th-century historians of the medieval Islamic world Mason (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on reverse merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 23:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battles in Spain 1

edit

Category:Battles by location in Greece

edit
Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. See Italy, Germany and other recent precedents. NLeeuw (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Housing rights activists from Detroit

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category with only 1 entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Activists from Detroit instead. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Activists from Detroit as a more specific target. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Acquired citizenship

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. Will reopen in the event the original Cfd goes through. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Remove redirect from "Naturalized citizens" and merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this Cfd is related to this Cfd below. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:21, 9 June 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:Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud

edit
Nominator's rationale: Specifies what's in the category The Midnite Wolf (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not sure this is a good idea. because some things might not be a song for example the New Ho King restaurant which got very famous because of the feud. there was also a pizzeria, and if more things comes up "songs" would not make sense Freedun (yippity yap) 00:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will note that Freedun has been blocked as a sock (in other words, I consider this unopposed as of now). Given that there is a potential objection, I will relist, but in a week if there are no further comments I would close this as soft rename.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 22:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Internet technology companies by Bangladesh

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. CSD G7 Liz Read! Talk! 20:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Typo for Internet technology companies of Bangladesh Greatder (talk) 18:15, 9 June 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:Secularism in the Arab world

edit
Nominator's rationale: I know that technically these are different regions, but... these categories overlap so healvy I think we should merge them. Mason (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, but purge the Moroccan and Tunisian subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: If Moroccan and Tunisian sub-categories are to be purged due to this merger, then I would oppose it, because the perceived and projected cultural ties among the Arab world are notable enough to warrant grouping all of these topics into that category.---Konanen (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing in the Moroccan and Tunisian subcategories hints at being part of a movement in the Arab world. The content is very specifically related to these two countries only. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Marcocapelle, I do not understand your point:
      1) Point of clarification: do subcategories and pages within the Secularism category have to reference specific concerted movements, or is any topic related to Secularism within the named geographic region (whichever that may be) sufficient to merit inclusion into the category?
      2) Morocco and Tunisia are, by definition, part of the Arab world. Any movements existing in these countries are therefore logically movements within the Arab world, so unless I have lost all of my abilities to read and understand, I do not think your comment makes sense.
      Clarification would be appreciated! –Konanen (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Konanen: there is certainly an Arab world, but it isn't obvious that there is Arab world secularism. Unless further evidence is provided this category is a case of a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I am very sorry, but I still fail to understand it isn't obvious that there is Arab world secularism. What does that even mean? Does a movement of secularism have to be run by the same organisation in every single country that is part of a defined geographical region (→ Arab world) to be considered as existent? If so, then how does merging Category:Secularism in the Arab world into Category:Secularism in the Middle East make any sense? And why not merge that into Category:Secularism in Asia when we are at it? Konanen (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Konanen (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • In order to get any further in this discussion you need to make a case that "secularism in the Arab world" is an encyclopedic topic. That does not require a single organisation though. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I appreciate the categories may have heavy overlap, but I do not see why the Arab World, as a geographical and political area/unit, should be of lesser importance than, say, Category:Secularism in England while nobody suggests merging it into Category:Secularism in the United Kingdom, or merging that one into Category:Secularism in Europe.
    @Marcocapelle suggests that, if the merger goes through, Moroccan and Tunisian subcategories should be purged. That would be a disservice to the bigger picture, since all countries of the Arab world have significant influence over each other’s political movements, see for example the lead at Arab Spring. Marcocapelle’s requirement to make a case that "secularism in the Arab world" is an encyclopedic topic seems to me to be iniquitous, as well. But never let it be said that I would not try to source proof of definingness of the subject matter [2][3][4][5].
    However, if a merger is considered absolutely necessary, then I suggest renaming Category:Secularism in the Middle East to Category:Secularism in the Middle East and North Africa, modelled after Democracy in the Middle East and North Africa. Thank you. –Konanen (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Question/Comment: Asking for evidence to support something being defining is not "iniquitous", that's a reasonable bar. But what I'm struggling with is why we need both Secularism in the Middle East and Secularism in the Arab world. Are they distinct enough to warrant two categories? I think that merging in reverse would also be fine. Mason (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mason: Yes, because the Arab World is a reasonably well-defined geocultural area, while the Middle East, which is a more loosely-defined geopolitical region, comprises—per the WP article—five non-Arab World countries, and moreover lacks 6 to 9 (depending on the count) countries considered as belonging to the Arab World. In other words, there are roughly 18 countries making up the Middle East, 13 of which are part of the Arab World, while the minimum count of the latter comprises 19 countries (maximum: 22 countries).
    It may be useful for some users to limit their browsing of the topic to only Arabic-speaking countries, as their political developments are usually heavily influenced by one another, and correlations within them would be of greater interest, which is not the case for non-Arab World Middle Eastern countries, which has a contested/varying definition. –Konanen (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not asking if Arab world and the middle east are distinct. I'm asking if the intersection with secularism for each is distinct. Mason (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. @Konanen, I would say the term "Arab world" is the more loosely defined region of the two. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, @Smasongarrison, I think we can create a Category:Secularism in North Africa to represent the second half MENA countries and add any related article there. Just a thought. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be a good solution Mason (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh this already exists, Morocco just wasn't in there yet. I have added it now. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The Arab world is not more loosely defined. It's the member states of the Arab League. Charles Essie (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:18th-century African-American politicians

edit
Nominator's rationale: 3x Upmerge. Per African-American officeholders in the United States, 1789–1866. There is only one person Wentworth Cheswell who will ever be in this category. Mason (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hamas bombers

edit
Nominator's rationale: "bomber" is not an occupation. User:Namiba 01:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although the category had only 2 members when nominated, it could easily be populated with more. I just added Mohiyedine Sharif, Yahya Ayyash, Samar Sabih, and Nidal Farahat. Most of these were already in Category:Hamas military members. It might be worth re-parenting Category:Hamas bombers to Category:Hamas military members, although that would leave Category:Hamas members by role pretty much empty. I think it is quite a redundant layer anyway; we could Upmerge it to Category:Hamas members instead. NLeeuw (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a redundant layer and we do not have this kind of intersection for other groups.--User:Namiba 00:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Namiba So you agree with Upmerging Category:Hamas members by role to Category:Hamas members, and Re-parenting Category:Hamas bombers to Category:Hamas military members? If so, could you please tag Category:Hamas members by role accordingly, and change your proposal, or add it as an Alt proposal? Thanks in advance!
If you mean something else, please clarify, so we can discuss it. NLeeuw (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as Category:Hamas members by role has not been tagged for a week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere. Bomber isn't defining. Mason (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: "Bomber" and "military wing membership" aren't specific roles – they are attributions or in some cases here allegations or associations. Leadership is also a vague concept in the context and can refer to individuals at all different levels up and down the hierarchy, so "leader" is also not a specific role here. There's no reason why these sub-categories wouldn't simply be more usefully listed under the main category anyway. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iskandar323: please revert your removal of the category from various members. It defeats the purpose of CfD if you do so. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The category wasn't populated with any "bombers", which are aircraft. It contained five military engineers and bomb markers and one suicide bomber, which is a precise term. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have restored the six members.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Iskandar323, @Smasongarrison, @Marcocapelle, what is your preference regarding the nom's proposal and the alternative proposal by Nederlandse Leeuw above? — Qwerfjkltalk 17:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be merged to Category:Hamas military members, but that would only prequel a further discussion on renaming/deletion. At the moment, it is imprecise and could be readily deleted as vapid and meaningless. Alternatively, five members are "bomb markers", not "bombers", so it could be renamed to that; however, the last is a suicide bomber, which would need removing in case of renaming. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient villages in Israel

edit
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. There is no need to merge, the subcategory is already in appropriate parents. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with acquired citizenship

edit
more nominations
Nominator's rationale: Merge/rename per recent Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose People can acquire citizenship through other means than naturalization. Many jus sanguinis countries allow people to register as citizens without going through the naturalization process if they have family ties to the country. The discussion was poorly attended and flat out wrong because most people with acquired Israeli citizenship got it via a different process than naturalization. (t · c) buidhe 05:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Buidhe: so if merged it should be a reverse merge? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I would lean towards opposing merge because heritage citizenship acquisition is very different from naturalization, and could be a defining difference. Besides naturalization is a more common term, because most countries with a lot of new citizens get them via naturalization primarily or exclusively. (t · c) buidhe 05:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Buidhe, so would you suggest the other way around? "Acquired" being the more broader term. @Marcocapelle Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle, @Smasongarrison I think merging as is would be better, don't you? I would also open to reverse merge too since "aquired" is a more broader term covering types of citizenships. I just don't think splitting hairs between types of methods is advisable here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is also true, so I am not wedded to a particular merge direction. I do think that these categories should be merged somehow since the difference between the two is pretty trivial. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Support a merge. I'm of the same opinion as Macro. A merge would be good, either direction is fine with me.Mason (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pppery and Ymblanter: please do not process the previous nomination pending discussion about this one. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it was already processed two days ago, but the categories can be retagged and included here, if there is consensus to revert we can revert. Ymblanter (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 1: If a merge does go ahead, the parent categories will need to be edited manually. Note 2: I only found this after merging Wikidata on some of the former set. I am willing to undo that work if there is consensus to revert. – Fayenatic London 10:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Syndromes with autism

edit
Nominator's rationale: "Syndromic autism" is much more commonly used than "Syndromes with autism". For example, on Google Scholar, "Syndromes with autism" OR "Syndrome with autism" yields about 516 results[6], whereas "Syndromic autism" gives about 3,470 results[7]. Additionally, renaming this category would also make it correspond to Syndromic autism article. Digressivo (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Add Syndromic autism as Main article. NLeeuw (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic of these syndromes. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A syndrome is a collection of symptoms that co-occur and therefore when autism is one of these it is prominently listed in the RS and can be considered defining.
    I'm not against the rename but for reference the title was chosen for consistency with other "syndromes with" categories. (t · c) buidhe 01:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • They aren't syndromes with autism but rather syndromes with a slightly higher prevelance of autism than average. Most articles hardly make any reference to autism. A list would be much better in this case, and that is already included in the main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The ones I added had due weight to mention autism in the first couple of sentences, even if it isn't universal. The category seems to have expanded in the meantime and may need a purge instead. (t · c) buidhe 16:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on deletion? (I am not seeing opposition to the rename if this category continues to exist, so if there are no further comments I would expect this to be closed as rename with no consensus on whether the category should exist.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer deletion given that what Marco has written. Mason (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:13th-century Baduspanid rulers

edit
Nominator's rationale: I don't think we need to diffuse Bavand or Baduspanid dynasty by century. Instead I think we should repurpose it to be a nationality category. Mason (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep But why? Both dynasties almost lasted 1000 years and had many rulers. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the category only contains two centuries... and we don't typically have categories at the intersection of occupation+century+family dynasty. And we don't have parent categories for several of the two way intersections, which makes it hard for me to see a case for why this narrow intersection is defining. Mason (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of differing options; any compromise?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to merge it into the existing categories. Mason (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia

edit
Nominator's rationale: no accurate reliable sources to verify such a classification, even the category descroption says "This category is not necessarily indicative of total loss of population, traditions, language or culture - each specific case may have particular individual contexts" that its unable to be clearerly define or even confirm that the launguage, culture, people, knowledge, country is actually extinct Wikipedia should not be categorising as such. Gnangarra 13:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnangarra The category description can be changed. If articles can use past tense words like "were" and "was" in reference to a tribe, I'm not seeing why the word "extinct" is out of question. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is the issue of using the "tribes" to decsribe Indigenous Countries, Cultures and People in Australia is inaccurate at best racist at worst. The term itself implies a lot of colonial misinformation and a distinct lack of understanding of Indigenous Cutlures in Australia. The use of past tense in words like were or was is also not an indicator of the Indigenous Countries, cultures, languages or peoples continuation. Very specifically by calling a Country extinct that frees the restriction of cultural protocols applying when working on with Indugenous Cultural materials. All countries are still in existance and are represented through Land Councils who manage everything from protocols on entering a country, to land rights. My reasoning is not playing words games its saying that the assumption of being extinct is a misnomer, even in languages and cultures where a recent Language conference in Queensland a professor was luaghed off stage when he stated that a language was extinct yet multiple people stood up and spoke the language. Without rocksolid gold plate sources published within the last 4 years the label of extinct is a false narrative derived from the recent history wars, and anti landrights campaigners. The other issue we have is the Australian Bureau of Statistics problematic collection of reliable data as it records just one language spoken not all In the context of the Census, 'Indigenous' or 'First Nations' results are defined by respondents who have answered that they are of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander background. There are over 230 Australian Indigenous Languages that the Census records which is less than the actual number of Indigenous languages.[8]. Gnangarra 09:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the use of "tribe" isn't my decision. It is used for many articles about Aboriginal Australian groups, so that seems to perhaps be a wider issue worth fixing. What is the continuation of a group like the Toogee? What is the relevant land council? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tribe is not used in Australia, the poor use of terms in Wikipedia articles is one of the many barriers people working with Indigenous cultures struggle to address as shows Wikipedia in a bad light and not respectful of the culture. Basically ticks all the racists, Inforwar, challenge faced out on the street its up to us to lift our standards. Gnangarra 12:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it is questionable if ethnic groups become extinct at all. A language may become extinct for sure, but ethnic groups mostly dissolve in other ethnic groups. - But this comment applies to the whole tree of Category:Extinct ethnic groups. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle Aren't we talking about cultural extinction? Are you defining extinction as the literal death of all group members without any descendants? That seems like an unorthodox interpretation. The Susquehannock people are extinct as a tribe, despite having some descendants in the Seneca-Cayuga Nation. I don't see any contradiction here. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Frustratingly, the term "extinct" seems to be used somewhat inconsistently for both cultural extinction and the death of all group members (at least, from a google search). Is there a better term we could use to distinguish the two? Category:Extinct ethnic groups is currently a subcategory under Category:Human extinction which implies the latter, so perhaps it should be renamed and/or categorized differently if most of the members are groups that are only culturally extinct. Psychastes (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seneca-Cayuga Nation is not an Indigenous Country in Australia, you are making comparisons that are not like for like. Gnangarra 09:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And? I'm addressing Marcocapelle's statement about the broader category tree. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If not an outright deletion then certainly a renaming to be more clear would seem to be a good idea.★Trekker (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What would you propose and why? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Genocide happens. Wishful thinking doesn't change that. "Extinct" is a harsh and ugly word to apply to people; it's natural to recoil in disgust at the idea. It may be very appealing to think that a group "didn't really go extinct" because some of their descendants blended into other groups. But if the group no longer exists as a distinct people with a distinct culture and language, the group really is extinct. Perhaps something like Category:Former Indigenous peoples would be less noxious to the moral sense of the reader. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Genocide happens — In particular Genocide of Indigenous Australians. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mitch Ames That leads to two questions. Is there even one example in all of Australian history of an entire group being murdered without any known descendants? Are there any examples of groups who, through genocidal violence and assimilation, ceased to exist as distinct cultural groups? In both cases, there would have to be terminology to describe a group that once was and now is no longer. If not "extinct", there would still have to be some other description. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, we need to be careful not to conflate "genocide" and "extinction". Genocide does not require killing all of the people - it is defined as "intentional destruction ... in whole or in part". Extinction requires that they all die, but doesn't require intent. There may be an overlap, but they are not the same thing, and neither implies the other. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    agree genocide doesnt equate to extinction. @Bohemian Baltimore perhaps you should start with List of massacres of Indigenous Australians to understand the extent of Geonicidal acts in Australia. Gnangarra 12:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gnangarra Since my meaning apparently wasn't clear; there are genocidal acts of violence which lead to the literal or cultural destruction of peoples. What terminology would you use to refer to groups that have been physically annihilated in entirety through genocidal violence, disease, etc? What terminology would you use to refer to historical groups that may have living descendants but that are no longer culturally distinct due to genocidal violence, etc? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the issue the assumptions here are made based on the use of past tense language in the article, none of them have any reliable sources to support being included in this category. Given that the category itself should be deleted. Gnangarra 13:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gnangarra There are a small number of articles. I do not have a strong opinion on the category, whether it should be renamed or deleted. But I reiterate my question; are there any historical Indigenous Australian groups that can be said to have once existed but that no longer do? What terminology should be used to refer to those historical groups? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont have any reliable sources to answer that question, all I know is the articles in this category dont have reliable sources to even be included in the category. The whole purpose of raising it here is exatcly the category itself not some wider theoretical discussion on meanings or what ifs. I gather I can remove them all from this category for lack of sourcing that clearly supports the claim. Gnangarra 12:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gnangarra How would you feel about a category such as Category:Historical Indigenous peoples in Australia, Category:Historical Indigenous peoples, etc. or would that involve the same quandaries? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    to quotes The articles are fine in Category:Aboriginal peoples of Queensland anyway. Marcocapelle Gnangarra 05:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mitch Ames I'm not conflating genocide and extinction; I myself belong to a group whose history includes the former but not the latter. But I would question why the word extinction has to automatically mean everybody dies. I don't think a term like "cultural extinction" implies that. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    why the word extinction has to automatically mean everybody dies — Because when we are talking about people, that's what the word means "Extinction is the termination ... by the death of its last member." Admittedly if we are talking about culture we could say that the group is extinct if nobody belongs to it. (If we all gave up editing and WMF deleted Wikipedia, Wikipedians could be said to be "extinct", but most us would still be alive.)
    My main point here is that we should probably not use the word "genocide" in this discussion, because it is neither necessary nor sufficient for "extinction", and is unnecessarily emotive. Yes genocide happened, but that does not determine whether a particular people is extinct or not. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mitch Ames Okay. So what terminology should we use for "cultural extinction"? What terminology should we use to refer to historical groups that no longer exist as distinct cultures? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term "cultural extinction" is not helpful at all. Even if there is no tangible remainders of a culture you never know how much of customs and oral literature have been exchanged with and integrated in other cultures. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but that doesn't mean that the group still exists. So what terminology would you use for a group that once existed and does not now? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment: having now been through every article not one defines the culture, people, or country as extinct, sadly Tindale works from 1974 is the primary source in every article and the most recent. The issue there their inclusion is based on whoever started the article using a generic type sentence like according to tindale they (some past tense word) from this area in Queensland. Ironically the only article with recent sourcing is about the current issue of domestic violance in Australia which makes no sense as its in this category. Gnangarra 12:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably you could solve the problem by changing "The Xxxx were ..." to "The Xxxx are ..." (other verb tense changes as appropriate), and providing a reliable source to support the statement of their continued existence. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I could change the wording, but as all the articles are basically say Tindale described these countries on his map as being xxxx, their inclusion in the category isnt based on reliable sources or hints of a reference to Extinct. I suggest the category becomes extinct. Gnangarra 14:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Possible alternatives to "extinct", for the purposes of renaming the category (tree):
    * Historical: we already have Category:Historical ethnic groups of Australia - which possibly should be merged (one way or the other) with Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia. Note that Category:Extinct ethnic groups is a subcat of Category:Historical ethnic groups, so probably Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia (if it remains) should be a subcat of Category:Historical ethnic groups by continent
    * nonextant
    Mitch Ames (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 01:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - for the record I had created this category in response to seeing a universal category being created for Extinct Indigenous groups, including Australian people, it seemed at the time better to identify the Australian component of an apparent claim. Note that by creating the category, I did not necessarily agree with either the category title or its assumptions, which is why I placed in bold comments as to the very specific event/issue raised in articles. I am intrigued by the discussion to date, as it seems either concentrating upon category trees and related subjects, or the issues of how to name groups of people who have been affected by reduction or severe loss of population. As the process in this particular part of wikipedia is relative to categories, there is a problem as to whether the actual subject is best ventured as to the veracity of terminology. It could be for everyones advantage to delete the original parent category, and find somewhere other than this CFD to explore the issues that are raised here. A collaborative approach to the wider wikipedian understanding of how to 'frame' the larger world wide issue of how and when ethnic groups have decimation of population is something well beyond the bounds of this cfd, and to simply arrive at a decision here on one small perspective does the larger project some significant disservice. Definitely not a 'free for all' RFC or similar, it needs a very specific guideline and process that works through the issues raised here, for the larger project. But then this is wikipedia, anything could happen. JarrahTree 02:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of discussion, but no concrete proposals (which is not inherently a bad thing!). What should happen to the category?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Autistic LGBT people

edit
Nominator's rationale: This category is a the recreation of Category:LGBT people on the autism spectrum, which was deleted per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_31#Category:People_on_the_autism_spectrum as a non-defining intersection. The overall topic is notable, but individuals as the intersection of a specific disability and sexual orientation/identity doesn't really meet the higher bar of WP:egrs. I encourage the category creator to see if the category was previously created before they make more intersections with LGBT and disability. See for a similar ongoing argument for Lesbians with disabilities Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_26#Category:Lesbians_with_disabilities Mason (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, but disperse in the tree of Category:People on the autism spectrum in the first place. I am not sure about the proposed merge target because I do not know if autism is generally considered to be a disability. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Keep I disagree that only identity+action are more defining than identity+identity, in fact I find autistic LGBT to be more defining than LGBT muderers (which one thing has nothing to do with each other, but since they are religioculturally/traditionally seen as sinful, then we have these guidelines). And as EGRS notes, When making a new category, be sure there is substantial existing research on that category of people specific to the occupation in relation to their sexual orientation. while making it unclear about identity+identity instead of occupation. And as you linked, the topic justifies it as notable. Actually, I find autistic LGBT to be more defining than LGBT with disability. --MikutoH talk! 23:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    also, isn't it the nominator responsible for searching old deletions to support their arguments? Because I found no previous deletions and decided to create, in my perception for the first time, the category. If I saw that it was deleted before, I would rethink it before creating it. but since that's not the case, I don't understand why you mentioned this fact. or do you mean that previous deletions justify recreation? --MikutoH talk! 00:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nominator linked to the previous discussion. As you can see the category name was slightly differently but the scope is exactly the same. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh you're right, I accidentally ignored the link. --MikutoH talk! 00:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That discussion had small quorum with two voting, IP nominated multiple categories in the same bascket. --MikutoH talk! 23:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Repilies/Questions: What do you @MikutoH mean by identity+action versus identity+identity? Because the requirement for intersections is the same per WP:EGRS. The bar is set high to avoid tokenization and stereotypes. Most of the categories that meet the threshold for egrs is indentity+occupation. It's a much higher bar to cover three way intersections: being LGBT, being disabled, and the specific kind of disability. It isn't about what you find to be defining. It's what scholarly sources say is defining. We are also running afoul of final rung. Mason (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was talkibg about this sentence: a person's actions are more important than, for example, their race or sexual orientation.. And Wikipedia:Consensus can change. --MikutoH talk! 01:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And you ignored the studies in the article you linked. --MikutoH talk! 01:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok thanks for clearing that up. I don't disagree with you. I think that the intersection of two identities can be defining, but it does require a heavier bar. And, I just don't think that there's enough literature to support the intersection right now. What I've seen in the literature is descriptive that people are more likely to have both identities than by chance alone. But there are a lot of descriptions like that, such as men who's name start with L are more likely to be lawyers. (Ok not that extreme, but it takes more than just the fact the intersection exists). Mason (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject LGBT studies, WikiProject Disability, and WikiProject Autism have been notified of this discussion. --MikutoH talk! 23:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - I think this intersection does qualify as defining for the purposes of EGRSD (in part because it is a notable intersection that I think several reliable sources discuss the incidence of and connection between in-depth), though my opposition is weak purely because I'm concerned maybe there's some nuance of the guideline I'm not understanding here. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:49, 31 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/they) 16:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom but, @Marcocapelle, @Smasongarrison, I would say it should be manually merged with Category:LGBT people and Category:People on the autism spectrum. I don't think autism is a disability per se. I can be considered as such in severe cases but not everyone would agree that it is in all cases. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I tend to take a broader definition of disability to explicitly include autism and other (equally lovely) flavors of neurodivergence, but you're right that not a universal opinion (It probably stems from my default of wanting more folks on my team 🤣).
@Omnis Scientia Would you be willing to do the manual merge to determine which folks should be added to the intersection (lgbt+disability)? I think it would be helpful to have someone who has a less universalist approach make the decisions. I'm happy to help with the rest. Mason (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison, I understand that perfectly! Its a good thing to be inclusive. And sure, I would be willing to manually merge. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Much appreciated as alwaysMason (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People on the autism spectrum

edit
Nominator's rationale:
See also: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 1 § Category:People on the autistic spectrum

The main article was moved and also based on this discussion. --MikutoH talk! 00:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The current name strikes an acceptable compromise between person-first or identity first language that neither of proposed renames addresses.[9][10][11][12] Furthermore, the main article was moved to Autism, which doesn't solve the problem for people on the spectrum. Mason (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also relevant are the two CFDs for this category. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 22#Category:People with Asperger syndrome/on the autism spectrum and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 31#Category:People on the autism spectrum Mason (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Autism has been notified of this discussion. --MikutoH talk! 23:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this is really a WP:COMMONNAME type of discussion. I think "people on the autism spectrum" has become the common name by now but I would welcome if someone would come up with relevant statistics. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose:"on the autism spectrum" is terminology that has significant support amongst autistic people themselves [13] and is at the very least terminology that few people hate.[14] The preference for identity-first language is not as uniform as it's made out to be, and "on the autism spectrum" represents a fairly non-controversial compromise. Its only drawback is that it's not as popular. In academic research, I'm assuming it's because they tend to use the full name "autism spectrum disorder". Google Scholar search results of the past 10 years yields this: "people with autism" -> 29.300 results, "autistic people" -> 16.900 results, "people on the autism spectrum" -> 5.590 results, "people with autism spectrum disorder" -> 12.200 results, "people with ASD" -> 17.000 results. On Google Trends, "autistic people" has overtaken "people with autism", and "people on the autism spectrum" ranks far beneath both of them.[15]
Based on popularity (academic and common) and the fact that there is support among autistic people, I'm not completely opposed to changing it to "autistic people", but said support is far from uniform so I'm hesitant about a hard line stance. TheZoodles (talk) 08:34, 31 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/they) 16:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Mason. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hospitals in Dharwad

edit
Nominator's rationale: These categories are one half of a twin city Hubli-Dharwad. The cities have a single municipal corporation called Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation. (It's like the Twin-Cities Minnesota). Almost all of these categories were made by now blocked sock puppet. Mason (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this is will impact a lot of categories.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Body horror video games

edit
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be entirely original research, not a thing whatsoever in video games, or in horror video games. User has been warned repeated for adding, and now creating, incorrect categories. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup It apparently is a thing in video games, there are plenty of sources that describe games as body horror, such as this one and this one. Body horror also has its own parent article. I'm not really aware of what bad categories this user made, but either way, even a stopped clock is right twice a day and that alone isn't a reason to delete a viable category. Any games that sources don't describe as body horror should be removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree to keeping/cleanup AHI-3000 (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep and purge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 15:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Jewish agricultural colonies of Podolia Governorate

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge for now, only one article in the category is not helpful for navigation. No objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States religion navigational boxes

edit
Nominator's rationale: Delete; duplicate category for Category:United States religion and belief navigational boxes. The only template in it is already in Category:Jews and Judaism in the United States navigational boxes. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Category for the Template:Synagogues in the United States has been moved from Category:United States religion navigational boxes to Category:United States religion and belief navigational boxes.; enagling deletion of the religion category in favour of the religion and beliefs category. Rangasyd (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, although Template:Synagogues in the United States wouldn't need to be put into Category:United States religion and belief navigational boxes‎ since it's already in Category:Jews and Judaism in the United States navigational boxes, which is a subcategory of Category:United States religion and belief navigational boxes. Relinus (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 16:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz, I believe Rangasyd, acting in good faith, removed the only content of the category. I've added it back. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Converts from atheism or agnosticism

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge (or reverse merge), it is unclear how these two categories are different from each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. I think that converts from FOO is supposed to model other religion converts categories. I'd be interested in anyone from the religion/athesist categories chiming in in case we're missing something. Mason (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's part of an overarching category sceme with a certain logic. Former Fooians can become converts to some other religion, e.g. Barism.
  • But if the new religion or lack thereof of the former Fooians cannot be determined, we cannot diffuse them to a subcategory called converts to Barism from Fooism.
  • Or, it may be that a former atheist or agnostic has embraced some form of theism, but not converted to a specific institutionalised or traditional form of it. Category:Converts from atheism or agnosticism is a containercat that currently only allows us to diffuse former atheists and agnostics as converts to Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism. But of course, those are far from the only options on the 'market', so to speak.
I think this indeterminacy, as well as lack of options to diffuse to, is what requires these categories to remain separate. (Honestly, I understand where the idea to merge them comes from, and I had to think for quite some time before figuring out why I had a hunch that it might not be a good idea, and writing this down haha). NLeeuw (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: A good example of a former Fooian whose current religion or lack thereof cannot be determined is Wesley Snipes. Raised as a Christian, converted to Islam, then left Islam, and we don't know what he considers himself these days. The default assumption may be that he is therefore an atheist or agnostic these days, but no RS says that, so such a conclusion is OR.
Similarly, there has been quite a lot of controversy around Antony Flew, a life-long atheist who appears to have embraced some form of theism just before he died and co-wrote a book titled There Is A God with a Christian. That Christian co-author has claimed that Flew converted to Christian theism just before he died, and that the book is "evidence" of Flew's wholehearted, sincere embrace of the Christian religion. Meanwhile, several atheists came out and called foul play, alleging that the co-author put words in Flew's mounth in order to construct a deathbed conversion story that is really convenient for propaganda purposes, and that Flew seems to have not embraced Christianity specifically, but a more general vague theism. Who can say? Flew is not there anymore now to explain. That's why he is in Category:Former atheists and agnostics, but not in Category:Converts to Christianity from atheism or agnosticism, as his religious views just prior to his death cannot be precisely determined, and thus diffused. NLeeuw (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose or widen the scope of the merge. The category Category:People by former religion has quite a few categories in it, including this one, of people by former religions or former non-religion. If we merge this one it would make sense to merge all of them. However, I feel like both categories are useful, as "Convert" categories show what they converted too, while the "Former" categories (which include the Converts as a subcat) are for those where the conversion "destination," for lack of a better word, is unknown. Relinus (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth noting categories like Category:Converts to Christianity, or Category:Converts to Islam, etc. all have many subcategories named "Converts to ____ from ___" which include the subcategories of Category:Converts from atheism or agnosticism, namely Category:Converts to Buddhism from atheism or agnosticism‎, Category:Converts to Christianity from atheism or agnosticism, Category:Converts to Hinduism from atheism or agnosticism‎, Category:Converts to Islam from atheism or agnosticism, and Category:Converts to Judaism from atheism or agnosticism‎. It's not clear how this would be dealt with in the merge proposal. Relinus (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. You explain some of what I was trying to say better than I could. NLeeuw (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not understand the logic. Of course there are people who do not fit a "converts to" subcategory deeper in the tree. But how does it matter whether these people are in a general "converts" category or in a general "former" category? They are both general categories. In terms of widening the scope of the nomination, I am definitely planning to follow up with sibling categories if this goes ahead. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the discussion is on merging the convert/former categories into one category even though they are both needed for the reasons stated above, namely that, as you say, "there are people who do not fit a 'converts to' subcategory deeper in the tree" but who would still fit into the "former" category. Since every religion/non-religion has both a "former" category and a "convert" subcategory, removing one or both for only atheism/agnosticism doesn't make sense. You would need to do the same for all religions, ie. merging Category:Converts from Buddhism and Category:Former Buddhists, etc. (That was what I meant by widening the scope of the merge, however, I would actually oppose that too, since it doesn't make sense either.) Relinus (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Relinus: until your bracket we seem to agree. I already mentioned I will do a follow-up nomination for all religions if this goes ahead. I do not understand why within the brackets you suddenly jump to a different conclusion. Why doesn't that make sense either? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Video games by language

edit
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:NONDEF. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, this whole thing video game language category is just a big mess. These categories are tied to three previous Cfd - here, here, and here - where the nominator is behaving oddly. They nominated it but the began to oppose it the moment people voted delete, saying they would withdraw it but never did and instead created more categories. I don't know what is going on. These are the rest of the categories which weren't nominated. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, largely overlapping with country(countries) of development for which we already have categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beauty pageant controversies

edit
Nominator's rationale: Most of the contents of this category are people, not events. Describing people as "controversies" simply because they've attracted some sort of negative media attention during their career - or, in some cases, for no evident reason at all - seems inappropriate and potentially a BLP concern. Omphalographer (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heavily purge, there are four articles that may stay here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Central Greece

edit
Nominator's rationale: WP:SHAREDNAME. Central Greece (region) is the modern administrative region (Περιφέρεια perifereia) established in 1987. Central Greece (geographic region) is the historic geographical region (γεωγραφικό διαμέρισμα geografiko diamerisma) abolished in 1987. I have WP:BOLDly renamed Central Greece (an WP:UNSOURCED article) to Central Greece (geographic region), and turned Central Greece into a DP, hoping to clarify the situation. Splitting the category is the next logical step. Child categories can be renamed if so desired per WP:C2C once this split is approved. NLeeuw (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is too simplistic a solution for a complex problem.   I'll illustrate the problem with maps:
If we want this category to be only about the modern administrative region (perifereia) of Central Greece, it's not just about removing Attica, it is also removing parts of Western Greece, removing the northeast coast of the Pelopponese (or not?), removing Kythira (or not?), but adding Skyros (or not?), and so on. NLeeuw (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I nominated grandchild Category:Battles in Central Greece for renaming to Category:Military history of Central Greece. Under my current splitting proposal, that renaming proposal remains unaffected. But if we want to avoid the Lorraine problem, as in previous "Battles in" discussions, it might have to be renamed to Category:Military history of Central Greece (region) later on. My splitting proposal was designed mostly to solve that potential Lorraine problem ahead of time, but I guess it doesn't really matter, as we can always C2C it later. NLeeuw (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Farmers practicing sustainable agriculture

edit
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection with occupation. Mason (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former atheist critics of atheism

edit
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge this narrow intersection. Also, it's unclear from the name if this is supposed to be former critics of atheism or former atheists. Mason (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


June 8

edit

Category:Fox Sports 1 people

edit
Nominator's rationale: These personalities are known for appearing on Fox Sports properties more generally, not necessarily Fox Sports 1. Let'srun (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know about others but I only tried to include people who appear on FS1 shows in the category. Expanding this to include all Fox Sports people is fine but you'd need to go through all the Fox Sports content that isn't on FS1 (such as NFL on Fox, WWE SmackDown, Soccer on Fox Sports, etc.) Soulbust (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SIA-Class Anti-war articles

edit
Nominator's rationale: Template:WikiProject Anti-war does not use a custom quality format or whatever it’s called so this category is useless. 48JCL TALK 19:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games by language

edit
Nominator's rationale: The reason why I'm deleting these categories are only for video games supported in a single language, and none of these categories are fully-populated either. More importantly many titles only available in a single language can alternatively be found in Category:Region-exclusive video games QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NONDEFINING. NLeeuw (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I changed my mind, I am keeping other categories still, but may need something else to do. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are several multiregional languages, such as English, French (France, Canada, French Africa, French Polynesia, French Caribbean), Portuguese (Brazil, Portugal, Macao), Spanish (Spain, Latin America, Philippines), Russian (North Asia, Central Asia, Europe), Arabic (North Africa, West Asia, East Africa, Central Asia, Islamic World), Hebrew (Jewish World) -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this is a container category. Its fate is conditional on what happens with the subcategories, which have also been nominated on this page. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Video games by language.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 18:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NONDEF. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English-language-only video games

edit
Nominator's rationale: I am deleting this category along with other Video games by language categories, (expect Chinese-language-only video games, which will merge with China-exclusive video games). Reason: Many English-only titles are otherwise located in Category:North-America-exclusive video games QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NONDEFINING. NLeeuw (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this category can still stay anyway. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Australia is not a multilingual region, indigenously developed games would be in English, same with New Zealand. Both are not in North America. Elon Musk's game Blastar was developed in South Africa in English only. So English isn't a language that is restricted to North America. Many games for the Acorn or the BBC were developed only in English and were mostly released in Britain and Australia -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the category.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 18:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NONDEF. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, largely overlapping with country(countries) of development for which we already have categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chinese-language-only video games

edit
Nominator's rationale: Some of these titles may be available be it digitally or physically outside of China. But I don't follow that logic. Merge. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, strong oppose merger You can’t just say “I don’t follow that logic, must be deleted” and expect it to work. But yes delete. 48JCL TALK 19:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This merger makes no sense. Taiwan exists. There have been vidoegames that were made for Taiwan or Hong Kong (pre-1997) that were only in Chinese. If this is properly populated, it should not contain just PRC-exclusive games. -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: I suppose I will withdraw my will the delete this category because of that logic. While Japanese, English, get deleted for some other reasons. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with parent (below) — Insufficiently specified. Which language? Mandarin? Cantonese?
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose: "Chinese-language" here refers to the Chinese language as a whole, including all variations of Chinese such as Cantonese. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Written Chinese is the ostensibly the same, so if there is no spoken Chinese, then it's just Chinese -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 22:19, 31 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/they) 18:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NONDEF Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, largely overlapping with country of development for which we already have categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Billionaires of African descent

edit
Nominator's rationale: Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided. The combination of being a billionaire and being of African descent is non-defining. Aldij (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivial intersections. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have Black billionaires and there are dozens of articles about this intersection. Per WP:EGRS, "At all times, the bottom line remains can a valid, encyclopedic main article be written for this grouping?"--User:Namiba 14:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a pretty poor article, only one source covering the grouping of black billionaires [16]. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but there are many articles about this topic visible from a quick Google search.--User:Namiba 18:55, 31 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/they) 18:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles unintentionally citing retracted publications‎

edit
Nominator's rationale: (I am coming here from the recent Signpost article about RetractionBot.)

Category:Articles unintentionally citing retracted publications‎ is for articles which have been tagged as {{retracted}} by RetractionBot, with no additional parameters. These might be intentional: we don't know until a human comes along to verify. Equally, they also might be unintentional, in which case they need fixing. Therefore, {{retracted}} should use the "neutral" category name which makes no assumptions on the intentionality of the citation (i.e. Category:Articles citing retracted publications). To accommodate the move, Category:Articles citing retracted publications (which currently holds articles containing {{retracted|intentional=yes}}) should be moved to the more specific Category:Articles intentionally citing retracted publications. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles citing retractions is the general category containing reviewed articles (unreviewed being the subcategory). Articles unintentionally citing all retractions are those that need human review. This name scheme matches all other similar categories Category:Articles citing publications with errata and Category:Articles unintentionally citing publications with errata, as well as Category:Articles citing publications with expressions of concern and Category:Articles unintentionally citing publications with expressions of concern. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that those should be renamed, too. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They could be. They just shouldn't be left out of this nomination. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Articles citing retracted publications. We cannot discern intent, and it doesn't matter here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can clearly discern intent, and it absolutely matters. Intentionally cited retractions have been reviewed by humans as appropriate to cite for the context, e.g. [17]. Articles with unintentionally cited retracted papers need review and very likely an update of the content based on a retracted paper, e.g. [18]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 that it absolutely matters. Citing doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0 (the infamous Lancet MMR autism fraud paper) is fine if you are citing it as a primary source (with the usual caveats about citing primary sources), but citing it as a legitimate piece of research absolutely needs to be checked. This is a tracking category; intent is determined by |intentional= parameter. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the botop here that's inconveniently finding stuff to go into this category, it is absolutely important to distinguish which categories have been tagged and which have been checked. I'm not going to guess if the tag I've just applied is intentional or now. Happy with the renaming proposal as long as it's kept consistant with all 3 of the template types, this won't affect the bot as long as it's done in the template correctly. Mdann52 (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Teen Titans Go! (TV series) images

edit
Nominator's rationale: The same thing for Category:Teen Titans Go! and Category:Teen Titans Go! episode redirects to lists, to match the same title for the Teen Titans Go! article. ApuNahasapeemapetilon1989 (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this could be a WP:C2D. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per C2D. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional female mechanics

edit
Nominator's rationale: I don't see any reason to split this by gender. There's only 10 articles in it, so there's no reason based on size. I don't really think being a female really matters with me mechanics. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is kept, it should become a {{non-diffusing subcategory}}, per WP:GHETTO. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Marcocapelle. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nepali language movement activists

edit
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories. Rervse merge also fine by me Mason (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not exactly overlapping, one is a category of Indian people, the other of Nepalese people. The former is related to the Nepali language movement which was a movement specifically in India. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 19 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) 00:29, 27 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/they) 16:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women conservationists

edit
Nominator's rationale: A non-notable intersection of gender and occupation. User:Namiba 14:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sort the rules out Wikipedia's policy on this is far from clear. Category deletion should be based on a clearly agreed set of rules and until then such categories should be left alone. Why is a "Female United States senators" category OK when "women conservationists" is not. I can assure you that to become a conservationist in PNG is for a women in PNG a considerable achievement and far from "non-notable". Roundtheworld (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge, trivial intersection with gender. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Shouldn't these be merged to Conservationists? These women are still conservationists. Mason (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with Asperger syndrome

edit
Nominator's rationale: Merge with parent category. Asperger's syndrome is no longer an official diagnosis so there shouldn't be a category suggesting it is either. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the categories should be merged. Jarble (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find it mildly licentious (maybe?) to request a merge of this Category, when the two main articles that are the subject matter of this proposal, namely Asperger syndrome and Autism, are currently being Considered for Merger with no unanimous clear consensus reached against the adoption of said merge proposal.
However, if I am wrong (entirely possible) and this proposal is not precipitate in view of the on-going discussion mentioned further above, then I Oppose, since not all countries have adopted ICD-11, and it continues to be an official diagnosis in some jurisdictions. There is also the possibility that some people might, for whatever personal reasons, identify more with the Asperger’s label than they do with Autism. We should not be taking away a notably significant and not-yet-historic diagnosis because of ICD-11. -Konanen (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Konanen, I didn't know about the merger and I would be against it myself since the scope of articles and categories are very different. Categories have a more stricter rules. From everything on the matter, Asperger's is no longer an official diagnosis. I wouldn't have taken the step if I wasn't sure. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omnis Scientia: Can you (or anyone else) please share what the rules on categories are? I have no idea where to find them, and I really enjoy not spewing nonsense, which I cannot do if I do not know the rules. Thank you in advance! –Konanen (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Konanen, hey there. You can read the rules at WP:CFD. Being completely honest, its fair complicated and I don't fully understand it myself. Still figuring it out. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild support, we should keep article Asperger syndrome for historical reasons, but user categories like Category:Wikipedians with Asperger syndrome aren't about history, they are about now. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lean oppose. The removal/subcategorization of Asperger's isn't really as clear cut. Many people were diagnosed with the disorder when it was in existence (which I think was as recently as 2019?), and they might very well still identify with that diagnosis, even if its been subsumed. I'd really like to get some more voiced from folks active in the Autism wikiproject as well as folks from the category itself. (I'm aware that we have have some good representation in CFDs, but... I'd rather have more voices on this rather than fewer). Mason (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smasongarrison, I would love for them to have a say, certainly. I'm personally still learning about it myself and I could very well be wrong here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was very confident that you would :) And I think that the tentative approach we're taking here is a good way to go about it. I could be convinced in either direction. Mason (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Autism.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, if the term does not exist anymore then the category should not exist, just got diagnosed with autism today. Sahaib (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films with scents

edit
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT. Removed three entries where this was non-defining, leaving just the two films and the general topic (which isn't itself a film so maybe shouldn't be in here as an entry; perhaps {{catseealso}} would've made more sense). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree that it's not defining on Postcard from Earth, where the 4-D aspect of the film is discussed substantially. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article only mentions the scent once in the lead and says nothing substantial about it in particular. If there's more to be written about that aspect then it should be added, at which point I would reconsider the category placement. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:39, 27 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/they) 16:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian writers by language

edit
Nominator's rationale: The contents of the category nominated in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_27#Category:Indian_novelists_by_language; seems to juxtapose ethnicity and language, having the naming convention of the former but parent categories more appropriate for the latter. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A split would lead to pairs of categories with almost 100% overlap. Shouldn't we just rename the categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on renaming?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical geography

edit
I can't imagine that these are fundamentally different concepts. I have tagged both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 Main article is Historical geography, while Geographic history redirects to History of geography. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Kinda Municipality,

edit
Nominator's rationale: Not sure of the reason why this was created, but it looks like a duplicate. Solidest (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical geography of Fars

edit
Nominator's rationale: This is either for Fars (territory) or Fars province which is why title clarity is important. Gonnym (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:S.L. Benfica (table tennis)

edit
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No evidence that it can be expanded. Most other subcategories are similarly small and should also be merged. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UCLA Extension alumni

edit
Nominator's rationale: This distinction for people who attended the extension school seems like an arbitrary distinction and is likely not defining for any of the two members in the category Mason (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The UCLA Extension is one of the constituent colleges in the UCLA Systems, and one of the oldest at UCLA (it is a separate accredited college and not a designation for off campus students). Several other universities have extension colleges as can be seen here. These colleges, designed for working people, are becoming more popular, particularly post COVID. There are many links to the main article for people, which likely means the cat can be populated well beyond the 10 already in it (I added a few since the start of this CFD). Also, this cat provides an opportunity for subcategorization of an overpopulated upper level cat. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge per nom. While you are right that there are other extension schools, this is the only one with a category and there doesn't seem to be a big difference between normal alumni and extension school alumni. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Omnis Scientia: Hi Omnis Scienta, please see Category:Harvard Extension School alumni. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would still say merge per my second reasoning. I don't think the Harvard Extension School teaches anything special anymore than UCLA Extension does. @Smasongarrison, I think you should nominate this category as well, in fact (and any other similar one). Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added to nom per @Omnis Scientia, pinging @FieldMarine. No one is saying that the extension school isn't notable, but that the distinction isn't defining for alumns. For example, Folks aren't introduced as UCLA Extension alumn, but they are as UCLA law school alumn. Mason (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omnis Scientia: Like at UCLA, the Harvard Extension School is one of the oldest colleges at Harvard University and it is distinct, with its own graduation exercises. With respect to, "Folks aren’t introduced as…", a Google search of, "Graduated from Harvard Extension School" shows people are frequently "introduced" with that distinction. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least Harvard's. HES has separate degrees (ALB, ALM which aren't earned at other schools at Harvard), commencement ceremony, etc. for the extension school like the rest of the schools. There are unique classes at HES, that aren't offered at other schools. If UCLA, LaSalle, and any others are more like Harvard, keep them separate as well. Patken4 (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is an interesting case. A WP:OTHERCATSEXIST argument was resolved by adding the other categories to the nomination, which seems to have produced a small WP:TRAINWRECK. I am going to relist (though I was about to close this as no consensus without prejudice against seperate but simultaneous nominations); comments are welcome, though I suspect that this is heading to a no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination result.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Protesters

edit
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories. Mason (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buddhist monks from the Western Regions

edit
Nominator's rationale: rename, for English speaking readers of Wikipedia the term Central Asia is more familiar than Western Regions. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Convicted participants in the Canada convoy protest

edit
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge for now. There's only one person in here, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Illeists

edit
Nominator's rationale: Trivial association, non-defining. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this may be added as a perfect example in WP:TRIVIALCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the characteristic is defining enough to be covered by and discussed in reliable sources (often a multitude of reliable sources, such as for Zlatan Ibrahimović and Donald Trump). Besides, there is a body of scientific research on the various contexts and psychological meaning of illeism (see section "In everyday speech" in article Illeism). --HPfan4 (talk) 23:30, 31 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/they) 04:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are available sources, so it is not trivial. Dimadick (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works by year

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated year categories. The two first categories do not need another merge target, the articles are already in a subcategory of Category:4th-century works. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:23, 31 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/they) 04:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge One article each. For most works of this era, we do not even know the precise date of publication or creation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rulers of Chiang Mai

edit
Nominator's rationale: per article Kingdom of Chiang Mai. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'll need to think this over, but right now I'm leaning toward oppose as there's no consensus in history-writing on the English-language term used to refer to such rulers, though rulers is commonly used. On a related note, I notice you've attempted a reorganization to match the category's scope with that of the Kingdom of Chiang Mai article, which I'm not sure was optimal. As raised at Talk:Lan Na, there was not a separate "Kingdom of Chiang Mai", rather the article just covers the a period in Lan Na's history when it was under suzerainty of Bangkok, so it's probably the articles that need to be re-structured. But the categories can be updated again when and if that does happen. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:05, 31 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/they) 04:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tambralinga

edit
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only the eponymous article and a subcategory. Move the eponymous article to Category:History of Nakhon Si Thammarat. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:34, 31 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/they) 04:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ming dynasty overseer of rituals

edit
Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 31 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/they) 04:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crossover characters in television

edit
Nominator's rationale: I highly doubt this could be considered WP:DEFINING for a majority of these characters. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:45, 31 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/they) 04:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on the description, it is likely to be WP:OCTRIVIA: This category is for characters in television who have made crossover appearances within other shows that are not their own. One appearance of a character does not make a defining trait. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

East Bengal

edit
Nominator's rationale: rename, until 1955 the name of East Pakistan was East Bengal. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Indirect WP:C2D. NLeeuw (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For your information, the category Category:East Bengal was merged into Category:East Pakistan and that's why WP:C2C makes sense here. Mehedi Abedin (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we had discussions about the category Category:East Bengal. You proposed to merge it into Category:East Pakistan (see here) saying they were actually same thing. The consensus was to merge the category. That's why these establishment categories are East Pakistan, not East Bengal. Now saying we have to rename them because it was East Bengal is contradictory because in 2022 you proposed the opposite showing different reason. If you want to rename establishment categories then I propose you to discuss to bring back East Bengal category first. Mehedi Abedin (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not need separate trees just because of a name change, but the individual year categories should be named accurately. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meitei goddesses

edit
Nominator's rationale: I haven't listed all of the child categories of this, but the problem is not the parent category. The problem is that the parent category contains a massive 39 largely-overlapping categories for just 24 actual articles. I suggest that every child of this category should be merged back to the parent. PepperBeast (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pepperbeast: I listed them all. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! PepperBeast (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is an evident large overlap in the roles of deities in Meitei mythology. For example, Kounu appears in 24 of the 39 categories. Also merge to respective deities by type, such as Category:Abundance goddesses. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hie, Creator of many of the Categories here. To explain why so many categories were created. I actually created all the "in Meitei mythology" to basically UNCLOUT other categories. Apparently ALL the deities of Meitei mythology are Deities of Everything-and-Its-Neighbour and one of the creator of pages put each and every one (or close to it) in dozens of categories for basically almost every god and goddess. I don't know anything about Meitei Mythology, so I can't tell which god really belong in a category or not (apparently basically all goddesses or close to it are Goddess of Abundance, Beauty, Arts, Fertility, Love and lust, Peace, Magic, among other things...) Though some divinities in each Pantheon can have lots of domains (like Apollo in greek mythology, Sucellos in the celt one), and I can't tell which really belong in each category or not. Still, I note that most don't have anything in the description or a reference that would justify many of the various categories listed (I think one of the rational seems to be that if a goddess is beautiful then she's deemed a goddess of Beauty, Fertility as well as Love and lust, any divinity that is not a warrior is automatically pushed into God/Goddess of Peace and basically all divinities are Fortune ones just by existing, unless linked to something unfortunate...) This caused a bit of a strange situation in the various categories, as for exemple if you went to Category:Abundance goddesses to have a look at the goddesses of this domain, half the goddesses (17 out of 34) were the Meitei Goddesses alone, the other half for ALL the other Pantheons in the world put together... Same with the other categories, 20 out of the 44 pages in Category:Beauty goddesses were the Meitei goddesses, 19 out of the 47 pages of Category:Fortune goddesses, etc. Though when so many categories in a pagebelongs to just one other pantheon, usually creating a child page is preferable. --Zeynel (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consequence of this is that a lot of purging is needed. That can happen simultaneously with the merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Polio in Pakistan

edit
Nominator's rationale: Not sure how helpful this is for navigation. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic except for the main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The attacks seem to be connected to Islamist extremist opposition polio vaccination in Pakistan, although this is not explicitly stated in either of those articles. Maybe the attack articles should be linked to from the main article? Other than that, not very useful for navigation, so I also lean delete. NLeeuw (talk) 05:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw, I've added the main article link in "See also" of both pages. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good move. Delete per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Old style serif typefaces

edit
Nominator's Rationale: In Vox-ATypI classification#Classicals, Old style serif typefaces can be categorized into 3 subclasses. All of these 3 subclasses has their own categories in French Wikipedia. However, only 2 out of 3 of those French Wikipedia categories has a corresponding category in English Wikipedia:
  1. Venetian (fr:Catégorie:Police d'écriture humane, currently corresponding to Category:Old style serif typefaces)
  2. Garalde (fr:Catégorie:Police d'écriture garalde, currently corresponding to newly-created Category:Garalde serif typefaces)
  3. Transitional (fr:Catégorie:Police d'écriture réale, currently corresponding to Category:Transitional serif typefaces)

I suggest that the Category:Old style serif typefaces be renamed to Category:Venetian serif typefaces. Also, I proposes that any articles that are already in both Category:Transitional serif typefaces and Category:Old style serif typefaces be removed from the Category:Old style serif typefaces (as it's redundant).Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉edits 04:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


June 7

edit

Category:Bermudian centenarians

edit
Nominator's rationale: Delete; both articles are already in appropriate categories so no need to merge. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Manx centenarians

edit
Nominator's rationale: Delete; only one article which is actually about a woman born on the Isle of Mann to an American citizen and who moved to America soon after. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Guernsey centenarians

edit
Nominator's rationale: Only one article which is already in subcats of Category:Guernsey people. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philadelphian cricket tours of England

edit
Nominator's rationale: Narrow category, do we really need a category for only tours from a single city in the united states? Mason (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Adventure

edit
Nominator's rationale: Where do I even begin, this category is just plain old TERRIBLE. Why? Because, firstly it contains very few and many random irrelevant articles that no one care about (7 of which I already removed from this category). Also, Adventure is a pretty ambiguous and more important opinionated subject. Assuming that by the definition, it really is! Anything could be exciting or unusual to someone. Trolling Bronies on 4chan could be an adventure! Do you aggree with me? I hope you do! (Pssspt... Just because I want to delete the Adventure category doesn't mean I will also go for the categories Adventure travel and Adventure fiction, seeesh). QuantumFoam66 (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Christian creationists

edit
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, narrow intersection. There's no Category:Former evolutionists or Category:Former creationists Mason (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not kept, then just delete instead of merge. The proposed merge targets are not defining characteristic of these people. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete per Marcocapelle. NLeeuw (talk) 05:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I think Marcocapelle is right. – Fayenatic London 13:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tracker musicians

edit
Nominator's rationale: Tracker software is commonly used to create chiptunes, such that there is a very significant overlap between the two categories. Given the mostly overlapping and duplicative nature of the categories, a merge seems warranted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Yes, there is some overlap, but a tracker does not imply chiptune, and not all chiptunes made with a tracker. Also, "tracker" is strictly a type of music software, while "chiptune" is also considered a genre of music. If it makes sense to merge them into a single Category:Chiptune and tracker musicians, I'd be fine with that. Or maybe by platform, e.g. Nintendo musicians, Amiga musicians, etc. --Vossanova o< 01:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rock, Rock, Rock!

edit
Nominator's rationale: Not a lot of opportunity for growth here. The two songs articles can be merged to Category:Songs written for films. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure.
I would suggest to take out “I’m Not a Juvenile Delinquent” and “You Can’t Catch Me,” then just leave that category as it is. However, I guess deletion might be a solution for Wikipedia I guess. So fair enough. Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a second thought, I oppose this deletion because WP:SMALLCAT is not approved and these songs were written for the movie. Therefore, leave it as it is. Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, keep. Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:SMALLCAT has been deprecated, so opportunity for future growth is no longer an accepted argument. The two songs were written for the movie, so they appear to be intrinsically related. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, I think it's best for it to be deleted. It's Wikipedia, but I agree. Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't see the need for an eponymous category for a film's music that only contains its soundtrack and two songs from it. They are already well-linked by other means, and there is no scheme for such categorization for similar films (no Category:Flashdance, no Category:The Woman in Red (1984 film), which each have articles for its soundtrack and multiple songs), only by the music of film franchises per Category:Film music by media franchise. Rock, Rock, Rock! isn't a franchise so even a move to Category:Rock, Rock, Rock! music doesn't make much sense (but that would be a better option than the current eponymous named one). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough.
    Best regards,
    Inajd Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Why Do Fools Fall in Love (song)

edit
Nominator's rationale: There are no categories for specific song titles nor should there be. Something like this could lead to a glut of overcategorization of other titles that could include a film named after the song, or any album that contains a cover version. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars
I see. Also, I know it does not have to do with this, but why does “Gangnam Style” article has its eponymous category although it’s a single?
best regards,
Inajd Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Inajd0101 it appears you've misunderstood the purpose of categories. The way you've made it, Category:Why Do Fools Fall in Love (song) functions more like Why Do Fools Fall in Love (a disambiguation page). The purpose of categories is navigation between subjects connected by common defining traits, while disambiguation is for like-named articles. I support deletion. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah,
Now I know now. Thanks, QuietHere. I agree with you. And excuse me for the inconvenience. Well, I did my best not to screw up. 😔
Best regards,
Inajd Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The purpose of categories is navigation between subjects connected by common defining traits"
@QuietHere Just curious my friend, and I'm not trying to be nosy or sound condescending, but what do you mean by common defining traits? I'm learning. Thanks!
Best regards,
Inajd. Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Inajd0101 per CATDEF, "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place. For example, Italian and artist are defining characteristics of Caravaggio, and so of the article on him, because virtually all reliable sources on the topic mention them." DEFINING also has more details. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@QuietHere Fair enough. I understand that by then. Thanks! And just to let you know, AGAIN, I do my best to learn about Wikipedia although not all of them because it's not my lifestyle (although it might not be an excuse to you). And any of my works at Wikipedia is usually based on Frankie Lymon and his songs, such as "I'm Not a Juvenile Delinquent" and any articles related to him which I am passionate of learning about it. And @QuietHere, excuse me for adding categories without asking. I was so eager to see how it works, but I misinterpreted the purpose of categories. I should stick to editing most of my part on Wikipedia. And I wouldn't mind if you don't care about my passion regarding Frankie Lymon and the Teenagers and their songs.
Best regards,
Inajd. Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Inajd0101 to be clear, nobody is blaming you for this. You made a simple mistake and it's being taken care of. I think I can speak on behalf of any editor when I say I'm glad that you're willing to learn, even if there are bumps in the road. Heck, any other editor could tell you about plenty of bumps in the road they dealt with. I know I certainly had my fair share (some more recent than I'd like to admit). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@QuietHere
Oh and plus, I wouldn't mind if you wouldn't care about Frankie Lymon and the Teenagers and their songs, especially of how I'm passionate about them. You and @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars are just probably paid to do the job and nothing else. Anyways, thanks!
Best regards,
Inajd. Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And also, it's never my intention to make assumptions for others to feel bad. Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 04:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear Wikipedia is totally WP:VOLUNTEER, nobody is meant to be "paid" to do anything besides the Wikimedia Foundation that operates the site. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All right, fair enough. Not paid. I would assume the majority of people here are passionate about Wikipedia, or journalism, and nothing else, especially when it has to do with me being passionate about Frankie Lymon and his songs, especially “I’m Not a Juvenile Delinquent,” et cetera. But thanks!
Best regards,
Inajd. Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination: I misunderstood the purpose of categories. And now I know why QuietHere explained to me earlier. Also, excuse me for the inconvenience I made. Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Why Do Fools Fall in Love (film)

edit
Nominator's rationale: All the entries for this category are songs from the film. Alternatively, upmerge to Category:Songs written for films. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nomination + WP:C2C given the rest of Category:Songs written for films' subcats. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nomination: I misunderstood the purpose of categories. And now I know why QuietHere explained to me earlier. Also, excuse me for the inconvenience I made. I did my best although not much of a Wikipedia (which I use it for the research I am willing to make regarding Frankie Lymon and The Teenagers). Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Film posters by country

edit
Nominator's rationale: The current category names are ambiguous as to whether they're, for example, posters of Swedish films or film posters from Sweden. I'd recommend renaming to "Film posters of Sweden" like the Commons categories. hinnk (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question I hate to be pedantic, but do you mean:
  • Film posters made in Sweden?
  • Film posters hung in Sweden?
  • Posters of films made in Sweden?
  • Posters of films made by Swedish crew members or crew members from Sweden?
  • Film posters that show "Sweden" (e.g. its landscapes or symbols associated with Sweden)?
  • Film posters made or owned by the government of Sweden?
  • Poster of films made by the government of Sweden?
  • Etc.
All of these are more or less reasonable interpretations of Film posters of Sweden. I'm glad you're trying to clarify the catnames, but I don't see it getting much clearer. NLeeuw (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both en:Category:Film posters by language and commons:Category:Film posters by country already better manage this ambiguity, so it does seem like it can be clearer than it is. Even a decision not to rename but develop a consensus on what the subcategories mean and add that to Category:Film posters by language would make it clearer. I don't think being pedantic is helpful here. hinnk (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm ok. Weak support. It's better than the current situation. NLeeuw (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, regardless of renaming I do not think this is very ambiguous. Posters of Swedish films (i.e. in other countries than Sweden) would be a rather odd reading. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Leaning oppose; I don't think its very ambiguous. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support matching commonscat.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Commons category naming tends to have less good scrutiny than enwiki, so it lacks weight as a precedent. These poster categories should follow the parents Category:Japanese films etc. – Fayenatic London 13:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of Chiang Mai

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge, they are almost all single-article categories, which is not helpful for navigation. Besides there are a number of establishments articles in this tree which do not belong directly in a year category, and they are already in an Establishments in Thailand category. So part of the nomination is merging, another part (the establishments bit) is deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete The population of Chiang Mai in the most recent census was only 127k. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the number you showed is for the population of the urban area of Chiang Mai. Whereas these categories likely refer to the Chiang Mai province that has the population of 1.79M, just saying. Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉edits 04:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The categories are named and parented as if they are for the city, not the province. – Fayenatic London 12:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I have added more parent categories that would become empty. – Fayenatic London 12:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rugrats and All Grown Up! books

edit
Nominator's rationale: Only contains one article. Seems to be WP:NARROWCAT. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per nom. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Doki Doki Literature Club! characters

edit
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Doki Doki Literature Club! since that category only includes these characters and the game itself. The characters are all still in that category, so there is nothing to merge here. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creator. Admittedly entirely forgot about the parent category when creating the category, so I agree with the redundancy issue. Though I agree, I still would have appreciated it if we could have finished discussing this before nominating it for deletion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I guess I probably should have gone a bit slower. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, especially since this category is getting deleted either way. Apologies if I was a bit accusatory by accident there. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per it being a mistaken creation according to category creator. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge, agree with redundancy, but better keep the subcat in order to keep the content in the tree of Category:Indie game characters. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not redundant, it falls within an established category tree and has a clear purpose. I should remind people that WP:SMALLCAT no longer applies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Small cat might not apply, but neither does saying that we should keep a category just because it's "established". Mason (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what I am saying. I am saying that the practice of grouping characters by game is a well-established one. This falls under that scheme and there is no reason to remove it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that it's redundant to the already existing DDLC category. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated places in Kirundo Province

edit
Nominator's rationale: Only 2 pages at present, so not useful for navigation. – Fayenatic London 13:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 9 pages now that I have put the communes into the category. 14 when articles are started for the capitals of the communes. And a region with over 600,000 people surely has many more settlements that deserve an article. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Communes are administrative units if I understand correctly, not populated places. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. I have reverted those additions, because the Communes of Burundi are not "populated places" which means cities/towns/villages. – Fayenatic London 10:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      According to the wikipedia articles, each of the seven communes in Kirundo Province has a capital with the same name. The capital of the Commune of Bugabira is Bugabira. The capital of the Commune of Busoni is Busoni, and so on. Kirundo Province had a population of 628,256 as of the 2008 census. The 2018 population was estimated as 927,761, or about 130,000 per commune. Our coverage of this region is atrocious. Let's not make it even harder for editors to improve it.
      This source describes Bugabira as a small town with colonial-era architecture. Bugabira commune is divided into the collines of Kiri, Kiyonza, Gaturanda, Rubuga, Kigina, Nyakarama, Nyamabuye, Nyabikenke, Rugasa, Gitwe and Kigoma.[19] Google maps shows Gaturanda as a region south of an arm of Lake Cyohoha South with labelled villages named Gaturanda, Rugondo and Rubuga. Gaturanda village looks substantial.[20] In 2012 the Global Water Partnership Eastern Africa gathered data related to drought in Rubuga, Kigina, and Gaturanda in Bugabira commune.[21] In August 2014 six houses were burned in Bugabira commune, including five in Gaturanda and one in Kigoma.[22] In April 2016 Gaston Sindimwo, President of Burundi, visited Gaturanda, which lies on the border with Rwanda, to ask the people not to stir up problems over refugees.[23] In 2023 Bugabira municipality issued a call for tenders for extension of the Gaturanda health center.[24].
      Clearly these is enough information online to piece together sketches of the many populated places in Kirundo Province. The category structure should be ready for them. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The category structure should be made ready after there are enough articles, not before. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: How many populated places are enough to justify the category for the province? Would it matter if they were all in the same commune? Aymatth2 (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: You may want to chime in on this. An accepted number could save a lot of time on debates over lightly-populated categories. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Aymatth2: "Five" is often mentioned at CFD as some editors' opinion of a sensible minimum. Personally, I would create a category for four. In a case like this, where additional stubs could easily be created, I would not bother nominating a category that had three members – but I would still not encourage you to create it for less than four. – Fayenatic London 08:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have often included Commune and town in the same article for African countries. Makes sense for places in the developing world where there may not be an abundance of sources. Though I don't think we should really have the commune and town in the same article for places which cover an area of 235 square kilometres like Bugabira. Either way, it would be silly to delete a category simply because the region is underdeveloped. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Aymatth2 admits, even the other 5 capitals of communes in Kirundo Province do not have articles yet. For some reason a famous cat-stroking Wikipedian created 50 stubs for Populated places in Bubanza Province 16 years ago, mostly villages, then apparently petered out part-way into Buriri Province. As and when articles are created for more settlements in this province, the category may then be re-created when it becomes justifiable, but Template:Kirundo Province is sufficient and appropriate for navigational needs at the moment; I have added Vumbi into it. – Fayenatic London 12:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Aymatth2. And populate..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Kirundo Province has more people than Alaska, which has at least 148 populated places. If Category:Populated places in Kirundo Province is deleted, and then a new editor decides to create articles for some of the places in the province, they will likely try to recreate the category. They will see a big red warning saying the Wikipedia community has decided there should not be such a category. I would just go ahead and recreate it anyway, but a newbie may be discouraged. That is the last thing we want to happen for an area which is so poorly covered. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American people by ethnic or national origin

edit
Nominator's rationale: per actual content. Aldij (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, this is not about ancestors' nationality, it is rather about people's own ethnicity. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Almost all of the people-by-ethnicity categories outside of the United States are called "X by ethnicity". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1996 Windows-only freeware games

edit
Nominator's rationale: Narrow intersection of year and type of software and obvious overcategorization. Should be merged back to where it formerly was. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not overcategorization - every yeas had around 30 games - we will have toooo many items in one page. I did not add all games to all years yet. Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds of items is still a normal amount for a category - some have thousands of items. Wikipedia won't crumble under the weight of a few hundred items being in a category. But if these year categorizations are kept, they should be by decade per WP:OCYEAR. Things should only be sorted by exact year when absolutely necessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Only one of the three possible two-way intersections between "[released in] 2005", "Windows-only", and "freeware" actually exists. There are only 29 articles in the tree. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per LaundryPizza03. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 21:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alpha male chimpanzees

edit
Nominator's rationale: This isn't a defining category for the single non-redirect page in this category. Mason (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, only one article in the category and otherwise redirects, this is not helpful for navigation between articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Music memes

edit
Nominator's rationale: Was previously deleted in 2022 for being non-defining to most entries, and it appears this is the case again now. In that prior discussion, Bibliomaniac15 suggested that this information was better presented in lists rather than a category, and I'm inclined to agree. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cultural policy by country

edit
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one country in this category. At most there's two if you want to argue that East Germany isn't nested within Germany. Mason (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The subcategories may be nominated too. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British women Marxists

edit
Nominator's rationale: Do we really need to diffuse this category by nationality? Frankly, I have my doubts that the intersection of gender and Marxism is defining. Mason (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sibling cats suggest:
More than enough to populate this category. I might add that a lot of subcategories in this tree do not feature a single woman. Women are underrepresented as part of biographies on British Marxists, and I don't think upmerging this category is going to help address that gender gap at all. NLeeuw (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Relational art

edit
Nominator's rationale: New category containing only 2 redirects. Gjs238 (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My earlier comment is no longer applicable after the category has been populated further. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Neither entry makes mention of relational art as a subject, and the relational art article doesn't mention either entry nor their targets, leaving it entirely unclear why they are being included in the first place. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now contains 2 articles and 3 redirects. I have also added the main article, Relational art.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per QuietHere, having these articles in the category seems to be a matter of WP:OR. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • New additions have the same issue of not mentioning the subject as the existing ones. Perhaps that just a matter of language and these articles all just need a rewrite to clarify their relevance, or maybe even new sources that do so, but as is there's no room for inclusion. Potential OR like Marcocapelle said. My vote remains the same. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


June 6

edit

Category:Back at the Barnyard

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: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 22:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Actually, Back at the Barnyard is the name of the television series based on the film, so Barnyard would be the correct title. ApuNahasapeemapetilon1989 (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:30, 7 June 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:Eyewear people

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 (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 22:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining. Mason (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is unclear what this is supposed to be. Actual contents are mostly businesspeople that sell eyewear. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:17, 7 June 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:Categories by city in Burundi

edit
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge this category is a redundant layer. Mason (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to delete the first based on Fayenatic london's observation below. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:18th-century Wallachian poets

edit
Nominator's rationale: 3x merge there are at most 6 people in this poet tree, without a real need to diffuse by century. I made a potential merge target category because Category:Wallachian poets didn't exist as a category.Mason (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is significantly less of a chore to create small intersectional and valid categories than huge category trees, which can be created at any ulterior time for reuniting the smaller categories and any articles that remain loose. I would rather create "18th-century Wallachian poets" instead of "Wallachian poets" (or rather "Category:Poets from the Principality of Wallachia" -- the two nomenclatures currently compete), if the latter option has me tagging all the articles on Wallachian poets, then sorting them by retagging the same articles with the respective narrower category! It reduces my workload and it is sheer common sense. Note how, in the "military personnel" tree, you had them all fitted nicely for you to just unify the categories; but of course you didn't realize that a lot of articles on Wallachian soldiers from other centuries (say: the 15th) are now not in the category you created, and of course you didn't go searching for such examples to include in the larger category you created (you also didn't realize that the category level you created should now include other trans-chronological articles, such as Category:Spatharii of Wallachia, all of whom were a sort of military personnel). You see: that would be the sort of work required for the part of the category tree that I hadn't bothered created, and the sort of workload you're now externalizing for others. (My contributions focus mainly on content creation, with all the intricate research this requires. I find category creation necessary, but boring -- implying that I should spend my time here on creating potentially immense categories, or hunting down articles to fill out the immense categories that others create, is a bit presumptuous. Just like other requests of that nature, for instance that I should fill out more redlinks to demonstrate to my colleagues here that a category is sufficiently valid -- that "18th-century Wallachian poets" is at least as valid a category as "Aqua members".) Dahn (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also: Category:Moldavian and Wallachian poets is rather pointless. I had created Category:Moldavian and Wallachian chroniclers back when we didn't have a category tree for both former countries, and to address the fact that chroniclers, a sort of occupation that is entirely in the past (for a genre that ended in the early 19th-century), had a trans-border shared tradition of history-writing (and a limited number of articles to fit in there). While this shared tradition can also be argued for poets: if we already have poets in the Wallachian category, what is the exact point of creating a category (other than the already existing larger Romanian one) for "Wallachian and Moldavian poets"? Dahn (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I have to say I do not understand the logic whereby we "only" have a category for "foo fooians" if it is demonstrated that there are "enough" (a never-defined "enough") articles to populate it. Sure it would be absurd to have a category for just two articles (though, again, three is apparently enough in other cases). But a category exists not just to neatly group the articles in a shelf; it exists to facilitate navigation, to quickly allow our readers, through this unique instrument offered by our platform, to see all the connections between a set of articles. The evidently absurd example you provide with Category:20th-century Aqua (band) members (I do understand the rhetorical point, but still) shows that you simply do not regard this as an important feature, that you do not conceive of any practical situation in which a reader may need a quick navigational tool for seeing what and how many were the Wallachian poets in the 18th century (including all the utterly mediocre ones that would not be mentioned in a properly developed Literature of Romania), and that you do not see it fit to ask why me as an editor would conceive of a tool to assist such a reader. I find that a bit arresting. Dahn (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it not helpful? Please elaborate on that point. Dahn (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • E.g. from Mihai Iștvanovici there is only one other similar article that you can directly go to, which is not very informative. By merging you can directly go to 5 other similar articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
44 subcategories to Category:18th-century poets by nationality, yet just one gets singled out. Interesting. Also note that of those 44, fully 10 have less than 4 articles included. Biruitorul Talk 07:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support 6 is not a lot for a category, but although there is no consensus on the mininum amount of items per category at any given time, WP:MFN (the work-in-progress guideline) recommends to merge for now if a category has fewer than 5 items. I don't feel too strongly about the need to merge these categories, but it's fine with me to do so. NLeeuw (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women who experienced pregnancy loss

edit
Nominator's rationale: Delete; the idea for this category clearly came from a good faith place but I don't see how helpful it is. Losing a pregnancy is a lot more common than people think, and the further back you go in history the more common it was. Its not a defining characteristic of any of these women even though it was likely a defining moment (or moments) in their lives. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. and agree with the assessment that its creation was in good faith. There might be a handful, like Catherine of Aragon, where you could make a case that it was defining, but it's a stretch. (And if anything henry the 8th's experience with pregnancy loss would probably be more defining...) Mason (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. An earlier discussion closed as no consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose I do not see any arguments being advanced why the earlier discussion (less than a year ago) should be disregarded, or how all the opposing arguments presented then should be ignored, or why those arguments have somehow been undermined or overturned. If you're just here to redo a discussion without bringing new policy and guideline-based reasons to do so, that is not helpful for the process. NLeeuw (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw, I wasn't aware of the previous discussion until Marco added a link to this. But I can give you a more detailed reasoning. You can say this category can also come under WP:TRIVIALCAT since, as painful it is, it is trivial that a famous woman lost a pregnancy. It may even be WP:SUBJECTIVECAT since even an abortion can be considered pregnancy loss to some and not to others and also, to some people, giving birth to a child who died soon after birth can be too.
    Also worth noting that we now know that women aren't the only ones who can get pregnant. Non-binary people can too. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, let's have a look.
    • What does WP:TRIVIALCAT say? In general, if something could be easily left out of a biography, it is likely that it is a trivial characteristic. I think that depends. I know women to whom a miscarriage was traumatising and life-changing, but I also know women to whom a miscarriage was kind of okay since the pregnancy was unplanned anyway. Furthermore, I know women who consciously opted to abort their pregnancy when the circumstances were not right to complete the pregnancy, and to some of them, it wasn't a big deal, while to others it was (even though they didn't regret it, as it was the best choice in the situation). Nevertheless, pretty much all these women only disclosed their experiences to me in a private setting, with a clear understanding that I should keep it a secret from others; they wish to control which people are allowed to know it, as they consider it a private and sensitive matter, even if in the end it wasn't a big deal to some of them. I think this wish should be respected.
    For our purposes here, I think this would call for a case-by-case assessment of what impact the person in question says in WP:RS that the pregnancy loss has had on their life. We shouldn't be labelling people to whom it wasn't that important, as this could needlessly stigmatise them. Especially in WP:BLPs, as pointed out in the previous discussion, we should be very careful not to categorise such people unless they come forward with their stories and explain it was very important in their lives.
    • I agree with you that the current catdesc is vague about whether it includes intentional abortions. The linked article pregnancy loss suggests it includes both intentional and unintentional cases. If that is the objection, though, the logical solution would be a split of the category rather than a deletion, wouldn't you agree?
    • I agree that non-binary people can get pregnant and experience pregnancy loss as well. If that is the objection, though, the logical solution would be a renaming of the category rather than a deletion, wouldn't you agree?
    NLeeuw (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw, respectfully I wouldn't agree with any split or rename because I also think this category is WP:NONDEF in addition to being trivial and subjective. If its worth adding, the information about pregnancy loss should be added - which is to say written into - to the article of the person. Indeed, in most cases it matters, it is gone into detail. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. That seems to suggest you no longer support deletion, does it? NLeeuw (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw, where did I suggest I no longer support deletion? I very much do. I merely stated that if a person has lost a pregnancy and it is important to their lives, that information should be incorportated into their article. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah sorry, then I misunderstood what you said. I guess I can understand that argument. I'll wait to see what others have to say for now. Thanks for your clarifications so far. NLeeuw (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw, no worries! Thanks for hearing me out as well! :) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, the above, and last time. Simply not defining, plus except for a few high profile women, we usually just don't know about this aspect of lives. To judge by the category as it is, this virtually only seems to happen to European royalty and American actresses. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The current contents might, of course, not be representative of humanity at all. But it is a good question who should and shouldn't be in here, if we are to have this category. NLeeuw (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is, and would be, who we have RS information for. That will only be a very small minority of our population of 397,000 women with biographies, reinforcing how non-defining it is. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I follow why a very small number of biographies falling into the category reinforces the argument that it is non-defining? That's true for many non-controversial categories. Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because this is extremely common, and if it was defining we would have far more entries, even given the frequent lack of information. Johnbod (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This isn't an easy question but having read through the extensive earlier discussion, I am persuaded that this category should be kept. It can be a WP:DEFINING event for some people based on reliable sources; if it isn't, then the category shouldn't be applied to the article (also bearing in mind WP:SENSITIVE). It seems to me correctly applied in the cases of (for example) Chrissy Teigen, Kathryn van Beek and Anne Boleyn. Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chocmilk03, WP:DEFINING means characteristics that person is notable for. I think you would agree that, while these women may have lost a pregnancy, they aren't defined by them nor are their lives characterised by losing pregnancies. The only serious exception is royalty for obvious reasons.
    Again, if its defining to their lives in any way, it should be added to the person's article. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Omnis Scientia: In my view, the characteristic of having lost a pregnancy can contribute to notability, and is a defining event for some people. In the same way that we have categories for year of birth, where people attended high school, Category:People with Parkinson's disease, Category:American amputees, Category:People with polydactyly, etc, categories don't have to be the main thing that the person is notable for or the defining aspect of their life in order to be defining and useful for navigational purposes. Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chocmilk03, well you can make that argument but, at the same time, not everything is categorized. Not every medical condition is categorized, not every disability. Its why "People with infertility issues" (or something similar) is not categorized and why I feel this category should not be either. I've given my reasons for why above, not least of which is that losing pregnancy is something very common and, going back further, was a lot more common. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also not go with the old Cfd's arguments. It really turned into a huge row which was not about debating whether the category was WP:OVERCAT or not (I think it is in many ways) but rather about people saying "what about this" and so on. I hope this Cfd will be more on actual policy than the previous one. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also please don't argue WP:OTHERCATSEXIST. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Omnis Scientia: My views are based on my own reading of the policies including WP:CATDEF, WP:TRIVIALCAT, WP:COPDEF etc, not the previous CFD arguments. In my view, this category does meet the criteria of defining for some people (even though it is unlikely to be the sole reason for notability). "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic"; pregnancy loss meets this criteria for some people.
    I wasn't arguing that "other stuff exists"; those categories were simply examples to illustrate my point, in the same way you've used "People with infertility issues" as an example of why you feel this category should not exist.
    I've read your arguments (and those of others above) and respectfully disagree, hence my vote for 'keep'. I don't seek to persuade you of the correctness of my views, and understand you take a different view. Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I find Chocmilk03's arguments somewhat persuasive, but not yet compelling. Let's see what others have to say. NLeeuw (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles of the War of 1812 by state

edit
Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. See also recent precedents, e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 24#Battles by location in Germany. NLeeuw (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping @Marcocapelle follow-up FYI. NLeeuw (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not merge The purpose of categories is to improve navigation to articles by the reader. Logical/historical groups (categories) help such navigation; long lists of ungrouped articles do not. Not once in the nomination or agreements is there any mention how this change will help improve reader navigation. This should be rejected on its face. Previous actions of this sort should be re-examined and reversed. When lists are needed, list articles can be created without wholesale elimination of helpful category structures. Both lists and categories are a necessary part of WP navigation. There is no benefit to WP by warring on categories. Hmains (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    long lists of ungrouped articles By upmerging, the Category:Battles of the War of 1812 will contain 79 articles. That is not "long". Only when a category exceeds 200 articles, they cannot be displayed in a single view. WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN explains all the relevant reasons why "battles in [location]" categories should not exist. Several precedents cited above demonstrate that there is a consensus to phase out such categories by merging or renaming them to "military history of X" categories.
    Example: Category:Military history of Delaware is almost completely empty right now, so adding 1 article, Bombardment of Lewes, to it is completely fine. What is not helpful for navigation is forcing the reader to dig through a needlessly long and cumbersome tunnel: Category:Military history of Delaware > Category:Battles in Delaware > Category:Battles of the War of 1812 in Delaware > Bombardment of Lewes. Could you explain to me how this is a necessary part of WP navigation? NLeeuw (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While one may invent a personal rule that more than 200 entries is 'long', such a numbers rule is nowhere found in the WP rules for considering ease of navigation (creating categories). Instead of exampling the tiny state (Delaware) that had exactly one battle in the War of 1812, one should example the impact to other, more consequential, states and see the negative impact there to their parent categories and thus the true negative impact of this proposal. Consider New York state: Category:Battles of the War of 1812 in New York (state) with 12 articles. If this category were to be deleted, that means all 12 articles would be placed directly into the parent Category:New York (state) in the War of 1812 and alphabetically mixed into these articles: Henry Eckford (shipbuilder), Pike's Cantonment Site, Plattsburgh Bay, Sackets Harbor, New York and Veteran Corps of Artillery. Likewise, these 12 articles would be placed directly into Category:Battles in New York (state) and alphabetically mixed into its 14 existing articles on various other battles that occurred into New York state. Now consider the WP reader who is using categories and who wants to see any or all articles on War of 1812 battles in New York state. Getting to Category:Battles in New York (state), the reader must open each of the then 28 articles to discover what they want. And similarly with other consequential states. And since this proposal is to completely put all 79 battles into Category:Battles of the War of 1812 and thus eliminate their geographic location as battles of the War of 1812, it just gets worse and worse. Geography is important to history; it is not to be disregarded and discarded as un- tasty or otherwise in the way. There is no way this proposal can even be under consideration as helpful to the user navigation: it directly negates and destroys the category navigation purposes and structures of WP. The purpose of WP categories is to make things easier for readers, not more difficult, not just following a misreading of some other editors' discussions.

Next, what is being proposed here is exactly what I wrote: eliminate the existing category structure that allows readers to quickly find all the battles of 1812 in New York State in one location (Category:Battles of the War of 1812 in New York (state)) without having to wade through and open n-number of extraneous articles just to find what they want--not to force each reader to make connections by taking information from one category Category:Military history of New York (state) and mindfully merging it with information from another category Category:Battles of the War of 1812. Such is the very purpose (and always has been) of categories (doing something once so each reader with each read does not have to do so), something the proposal would destroy by deleting Category:Battles of the War of 1812 in New York (state) and all similar categories--for no valid reader-oriented reason. If flat lists are wanted, then the WP solution is to create simple list articles--simple to do. The job of editors is NOT to presume they know how readers will look for information and limit WP to provide for that single presumption, but to provide various means that various readers of various thoughts and tastes may easily find what they want. This is what WP has always tried to do. Hmains (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about you help me rewrite Timeline of the War of 1812? I've merged all the battles into it, and have begun to integrate them and their descriptions into the existing tables. The new columns Theater and Notes allow us to state on which front or in which domain an event or battle took place, while the Notes allow us to give a bit more detail (such as location, intentions, results, losses etc.). Readers could easily find where a battle took place if we fill out these tables completely, especially by using the sort buttons. This overview will be able to do everything better than the elaborate subdivision of battles by location in sub-sub-sub-categories ever could. NLeeuw (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Ethnic or national descents

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: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 22:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: all subcategories in Category:People by descent are named "by descent", there is no reason to name these categories differently. Aldij (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:20, 6 June 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:Drake & Josh video games

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category only consists of two articles. There were no other Drake and Josh games produced. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with the Institute for Cultural Research

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 (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 22:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:DEFINING. I looked at four articles in this category. None mentioned The Institute for Cultural Research. Daask (talk) 14:07, 6 June 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:Cornish people of Irish descent

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 (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 22:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Irish people in Great Britain is already in the categories 'Irish diaspora in the United Kingdom' and 'British people of Irish descent'. Aldij (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is only one article in this category and it does not match. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete: redundant and not particularly useful, per above. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 07:12, 7 June 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:Chief Ministers of Anguilla

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: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 22:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Up until 2019 the office was known as Chief Minister of Anguilla, but the Anguilla Constitution (Amendment) Order 2019 renamed the position as Premier. Aldij (talk) 12:01, 6 June 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:Lists of foods by nationality

edit
Nominator's rationale: Food does not have a nationality; only human beings do. Aldij (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with nom. --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Shouldn't this be something like List of foods/dishes by cuisine? All child categories are named Fooian cuisine-related lists‎, while almost all articles are named List of Barian dishes/foods/drinks/desserts/ingredients. It seems like Barian is explicitly meant to include diaspora communities of Barian emigrants around the world, who have taken their Barian cuisine dishes and stuff with them. If we rename to "by country", we could be excluding diaspora communities, while "nationality" (though problematic) at least includes first-generation emigrants from Bar. I'm not sure what a better alternative would be, though. Thoughts? NLeeuw (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but the category's parent is Category:Cuisine by country, and it looks like Category:Cuisine by ethnicity doesn't have any countries in it. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm yeah. I'm still missing the "cuisine" part though. Lists of foods/dishes by cuisine by country? Idk. NLeeuw (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cuisine-related lists by country? --DB1729talk 13:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not need food or dishes at all, so Cuisine-related lists by country is the better option. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Baptist Bible College & Seminary alumni

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 (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 22:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 member as a notable alumnus. I have listed him along with 2 faculty members in the article Clarks Summit University. – Fayenatic London 11:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the parent Category:Clarks Summit University which would then be a case of WP:C2F. No merging is needed. – Fayenatic London 08:28, 7 June 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:Mistresses of Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans

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: merge (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only sovereigns have mistresses categories, even then when there sufficient enough to warrent it. Only two articles in this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, only two articles in the category, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:24, 6 June 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:Mistresses of Frederick, Prince of Wales

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: merge (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only sovereigns have categories for mistresses. In any case, there are only two articles (confirmed mistresses) in this category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, it is a very small category, but it's news to me that only sovereigns have categories for mistresses. Where is Wikipedia policy on this? PatGallacher (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PatGallacher, it's just an observation, I wasn't stating any rule. Every such category belongs to a sovereign of a nation except for two, both of which are small (only two articles each). I personally think these particular categories (for mistresses) should be limited to sovereigns who were known for having many mistresses. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do have mistresses of John F. Kennedy, Julius Caesar and Benito Mussolini. PatGallacher (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PatGallacher, sorry I meant for royalty. We can't create categories for any male royal known to keep mistresses. Its best to keep royal mistresses categories for specific royals to sovereigns while the rest can be sorted into Category:Mistresses of British royalty. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, only two articles in the category, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:25, 6 June 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:Fast & Furious lists

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: triple merge to Category:Fast & Furious, Category:American film-related lists, and Category:NBCUniversal-related lists. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 22:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need for a cat that has two articles. It can be safely upmerged and individual articles can be merged up to any other relevant cats. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to relevant categories the nominator's reasoning makes logical sense. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:24, 6 June 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:Books by Ivar Hippe

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 (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful for navigation. There's no epon parent category and only one book in here. Mason (talk) 04:55, 6 June 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:Aerial operations and battles of World War II involving the Netherlands

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: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1 P, 0 C. Triple upmerge for now. NLeeuw (talk) 04:51, 6 June 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:Futurist photography

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: merge and delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's only one person in this entire category tree. The parent category (Futurist photography) only contains this category. Mason (talk) 02:26, 6 June 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:Russian Futurist composers

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: merge (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duel merge for now. this category is really narrow and the parent category (Futurist composers ) isn't in need to diffusion yet. Mason (talk) 02:22, 6 June 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:Modernist women composers

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 (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Narrow category at the intersection of occupation, gender, and specific movement. The only person in the category is already in the right parent categories Mason (talk) 02:24, 6 June 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:Climate change filmmakers

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 (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Narrow intersection Mason (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one article isn't really about a filmmaker, the other article isn't really about climate change. I do not have a conceptual objection to the category though. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 6 June 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:21st-century Polish cinematographers

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: merge (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The norm has been that modern professions like modeling, cinematographers, etc aren't diffused by century. Mason (talk) 02:16, 6 June 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:Landforms of Akmola Region

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: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: So many redundant categories made (mostly) by the same user. Mason (talk) 00:10, 6 June 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.

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"