Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 05:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 2,153 open requests (refresh).

Current requests

[edit]

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

Opposed requests

[edit]

On hold pending other discussion

[edit]

Moved to full discussion

[edit]

I guess you responded after I stopped checking regularly for a response, so thank you for the note on my talk page. DGG is deceased, so it's obviously not an option to seek his input. I'm opposed to using obscure corners of project space to bypass discussion on items which should be discussed. Some editors in those project spaces appear only interested in pursuing (a purely superficial notion ) consistency, often without regard for whether there was any consistency involved WRT consensus enroute to that point. Hence, my earlier mention venue-shopping. I have no strong opinion on capitalization variants other than they're often time wasters that stand in the way of moving the project forward. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer the question @RadioKAOS, we need to know whether you're opposing just the national monuments nominations, or also the national forest nominations. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I left them a message after the above reply on their talk page and I've left them another one now. We still need clarity on whether the objection is just to the national monuments renamings, or the other renamings as well, including the national forests. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a ridiculous failure of communication... They've been pinged for clarity four times and had three messages left on their talk page about this. Personally I think it's reasonable to proceed with all but the national monuments nominations since there's been a lot of effort made to seek out clarity on this and they're not providing it. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe they're talking about the monuments categories solely, but I'm obviously a bit biased as the nominator. Any thoughts @Ymblanter? Hey man im josh (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh, I full support this move but I'd say move this to full Cfd, just to be safe. At this point, it is safe to say this person is deliberatly ignoring you. If they have an objection, they can raise it there. If not, then they had numerous oppertunities to do so. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current discussions

[edit]
Shortcut

September 23

[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit]

Categories named after Canadian Premier League seasons

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The names of these eponymous categories should match the title of their main articles. RedBlueGreen93 20:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Classical guitar makers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between the type guitar and occupation. Mason (talk) 04:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flemish battle painters

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: overlapping categories Mason (talk) 03:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Modern musical instruments

[edit]

All arbitrary and original research; Wikipedia is supposed to be timeless. it's not like musical instruments have censors on them so that whenever they're picked up, a central database records their usage statistics; such a system would have extreme security and privacy concerns, at the very least. Also, many of these categories are small with no potential for growth. Graham87 (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prehistoric Asia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, it is unclear how the two categories are supposed to be different from each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge direction? (I will tag Category:Prehistory of Asia.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't have a preferred merge direction, maybe User:Nederlandse Leeuw has, one way or the other. I do notice however that not just Asia has this issue, it applies likewise to all other continents. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Short answer: I'm not sure what to advise here. Seeing my previous proposal for renaming Ancient Fooland to Ancient history of Fooland was a failure, I'm reluctant to to suggest any direction to take into making these catnames more consistent, certainly as long as the main article titles are not in some way WP:TITLECONned first. But that is a discussion that should probably take place elsewhere and not here.
Long answer
Purely by catname and main article names, Category:Prehistory by country seems to show Prehistoric Fooland is more commonly used than Prehistory of Fooland or Fooian prehistory. But there are some notable differences that should make us cautious to make a WP:C2C argument too quickly.
These three continents almost consistently have subcatnames like Prehistoric Fooland, usually (but not always) with correspondingly titled main articles:
Category:Prehistoric Europe by country > Prehistoric Europe
Category:Prehistoric Africa by country > Prehistoric Africa
Category:Prehistoric Asia by country > Prehistoric Asia
But, present-day countries have inconsistent article titles, so there's no easy WP:C2D argument to make here. To take Europe as an example:
versus
versus
A casual observation may be that Prehistoric Fooland is much more popular for articles on the British Isles, other islands and peninsulas, but Prehistory of Fooland seems more popular for areas in continential Europe those geographical borders may not be that clear-cut.
The other continents are more inconsistent, and we've got a lot of redundant layers, like
Category:Prehistory of Central America:
There is a lot of cleaning up we could do, but where do we even start? Like I said in my short answer, I think main article titles should be made consistent first if we want to harmonise catnames afterwards. WP:C2D stipulates that catnames follow main article titles, not the other way around.
NLeeuw (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do people support a merge from "Prehistory of Foo" to "Prehistoric Foo"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greek mythology by region

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: These categories are for mythology relating to the places rather than mythology necessarily originating in those places, as the current titles imply. There are many Greek myths about places didn't originate in those places and many for which it is impossible to know where the myths originated. Some of the subcategories of Category:Greek mythology by region already follow the proposed naming convention. Mclay1 (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The rationale proposes a distinction without a difference. Additionally, renaming these will make them harder to search for, since there are already too many entries for "Mythology" to display in the search window, while most of the articles using demonyms appear right away when someone starts to type them. Consistency is not a strong argument when balanced against convenience. A handful of these names may not be familiar to readers, but readers who are familiar enough with the topics to be searching for them would probably recognize them; and many of the proposed names are equally objectionable.
For instance, "Mythology of Elefsina", rather than "Eleusis", since inexplicably the entire history of ancient Eleusis is covered under the unrecognizable modern name of the town; "Mythology of Corfu", as though "Corfu" were the name of a place one encounters in classical history or mythology; "Mythology of Corinthia", when "Corinthia" is the name of a modern administrative region of Greece that did not exist in antiquity; "Mythology of Arcadia, Peloponnese", as though any other Arcadia would have distinctive mythological topics; "Mythology of Salamis Island", when Salamis was never so called "Salamis Island" in antiquity and will not generally be encountered under that name, and there is no corresponding mythological topic for the other Salamis, in Cyprus. P Aculeius (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are not named based on the convenience of searching for the category name; most readers are not finding categories that way, and helping users get to them quickly is not a consideration. First and foremost should be accuracy, and these current names are not accurate. There is a distinction between the mythology relating to a place and the local mythology of the people from that place, but there is of course overlap and the proposed names work for both.
Secondly, using the modern names of the places would be consistent with the rest of the category trees for those places (we use "Greece" and not "Hellas"); however, if it would be better to use the ancient names of the places, we can do that rather than discarding the entire rename for that reason.
To address two specific ones: Corinthia is used for the ancient region (see Regions of ancient Greece#Corinthia), and the disambiguation in the category tree for Category:Arcadia, Peloponnese is necessary to distinguish it from other places called Arcadia. We generally keep subcategory names consistent for clarity even if they wouldn't be ambiguous. Just because we don't currently have mythology categories for other places of the same name, doesn't mean it wouldn't be confusing without disambiguation. Mclay1 (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will concede that the searching convenience is not a strong argument for categories, the way it would be with article titles. But the proposed titles are still counter-intuitive, so it is not entirely irrelevant; and if your argument is for consistency, then both categories including the subject and their corresponding articles should begin with the name of the place represented, rather than a generic word such as "mythology". When you're researching mythological subjects, do you look under "Greek Mythology" or "Mythology of Ancient Greece"? "Norse Mythology" or "Mythology of the Norse?"
There may be an argument to make for moving some of these titles, where the demonym is not as familiar as the name of the place, e. g. "Mythology of Cyprus, Epirus, Salamis" may be more logical than "Cypriot, Epirot, Salaminian mythology", but this would be the case for only a few of them, which again demonstrates that consistency, while not entirely irrelevant, is less helpful for determining titles than natural language.
With respect to the modern names, they are simply anachronistic in speaking of subjects from antiquity, and virtually all scholarship written in English over the last three centuries will use Greek- and Roman-era names in preference to modern ones. In some cases such as "Greece", there is a further convention of Anglicization, but it forms on the Roman-era "Graecia" rather than Greek "Hellas". But you will have trouble finding any scholarship referring to the "Elefsinian mysteries", or similar descriptions, and if there is any, it will probably be in recent translations of modern Greek works.
I will retract my criticism of "Corinthia", finding that the term is used for the territory belonging to Corinth in antiquity. However, "Corfu" is as anachronistic as "Elefsina" and even less recognizable; and consistency within category trees is a weak argument for disambiguation when there is no risk of confusion. Nobody says "Arcadia, Peloponnese" or "Salamis Island", and there is no need to do so in these category names just because disambiguation is unavoidable in other contexts.
It's not merely that we don't currently have categories for mythology of other, similarly-named places, but that it is unlikely that such categories would exist in the first place. For instance, the Salamis in Cyprus would presumably be covered under the mythology of Cyprus; and there is no other ancient Arcadia that would have any distinct mythology; the barely-known Cretan town is usually called "Arcades", and other places called "Arcadia" were not established or did not bear the name until after paganism was stamped out. The strongest argument for disambiguation would be "Thebes, Greece", but the corresponding article and category on the mythology of Thebes in Egypt are under "Theban Triad". There is not much risk of confusion, and a hatnote would probably be sufficient to help anyone who arrives at the wrong topic.
To re-iterate, consistency is not a strong argument for renaming categories that are already unambiguous, particularly when the extant names are what readers would most likely expect to find; and in many cases renaming them to be consistent with each other would make them inconsistent with article titles that readers would expect to encounter. It would be better to deal with these on a case-by-case basis. P Aculeius (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus; additional comments would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not have an opinion about "fooian" versus "of foo", generally, but I concur with P Aculeius that we should not use modern names when it conflicts with common names of ancient Greece as used by classical scholars. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still need more participation :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games about aircraft

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: These are overlapping categories. THe merge target is older and was merged into this one outside of the cfd process. Mason (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These cannot be overlapping categories as Category:Aviation video games currently does not contain any content. I also believe you are saying I should have renamed Category:Aviation video games rather than creating a new category. Though these two categories are technically different, as the name and subcategories have or had a different structure, also Category:Helicopter video games wasn't a part of Category:Aviation video games before I redirected the category. Furthermore the category Category:Video games about aircraft is very small, just saying. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You removed all the content from the Aviation category. All of the excuses/explanations you've listed does not justify circumventing the CFD process. Mason (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
QuantumFoam66 (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop double voting. The issue is that you circumvented the CFD process and are now suggesting delete because you don't like the verdict. Mason (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I just added Airplane Mode (video game) which would appear to be your supposed "needle in a haystack" given that it's about aircraft but has nothing to do with piloting them. This only further proves my point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Aviation video games, which I will note is currently a {{category redirect}}.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of the Jews in the Middle East

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, and keep a redirect, Middle East and West Asia are very overlapping concept. I will tag both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. ME includes all of Turkey and Egypt, but not the South Caucasus. WA excludes parts of Turkey and all of Egypt, but includes the South Caucasus. Ergo ME =/= WA.
I could possibly get behind "Middle East and West Asia", but that's a mouthful. Keeping separate ME and WA lists seems the better alternative. Lewisguile (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ME is a subcat of WA, which is certainly defensible. But much of the content of WA is clearly ME. If we decide what ME actually covers, say it in a note, & rearrange accordingly, won't that fix things? Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can and should decide what these terms cover for the purposes of the category, and say that. We should be doing that for all such ambiguous terms, such as Central Europe etc. Otherwise chaos. Johnbod (talk) 11:42, 7 September 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) 06:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think a more holistic solution is needed here, but more participation is needed to form consensus in this particular discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Appalachia-stub

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Stub template which populates the WikiProject category Category:Stub-Class Appalachia articles. Fewer than 60 members and Category:United States stubs is a very full tree, so unlikely to be helpful as either a stub category or a stub container category. Delete the template and re-sort the contents. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:7thC-document-stub

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Orphaned stub template with no associated category. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I made that template for some stub article I came across if my memory serves me right. I don't care about that template now that the page has been deleted, so delete it is.
(Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 02:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not0nshoree, reasonable. Just as a note for the future, new stub types should be proposed following the procedure at WP:NEWSTUB. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Subdivisions of the Dutch Republic

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge this underpopulated category Mason (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military of Curaçao

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge this underpopulated category Mason (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Economy of Loosduinen

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated categories, upmerge for now to the former village, Loosduinen. There's only one page per category, and the vast majority lack relevant parent categories. Mason (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Field guns by company

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This is a redundant category layer with only on parent category. Mason (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]



September 22

[edit]

Category:Chemical looping technologies

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There are one two pages in this category, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll emphasize the message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Engineering. And thank you to DMacks for your help so far!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning for this, looking at both associated articles, they describe oxidizing reactions (one literally for combustion and the other for a process of reformation/gasification (which is creates gases like H2/N2/etc.)) The name (if applicable) could be renamed to something to the effect of oxidative looping, combustion looping, process looping, etc. Process is probably the most broad and applicable — ChemicalBear (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 01:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval mosques

[edit]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge, these are mostly one-article isolated categories, not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment {{clc}} check here.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge 11th & 12th centuries only - that is, the first 6 categories in the proposal. Looking at Mosques by year of completion, most year-cats up to the 20th century have 1-3 articles. Looking laterally on either side of 15th-century mosques, all century-cats from the 13th century onward have at least 9 decade-cats, and most decade-cats from the 13th to the mid 19th century have 1-3 year-cats. The 11th & 12th centuries are the most barren outliers, with 1 and 2 decade-cats respectively, only 3 year-cats between them, and so are a better cutoff point than the 15th century. The next cohort to consider, if at all, is from the 13th to the 19th century, and should not be split arbitrarily at the 15th century.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 3 distinct century-cohorts are [11, 12], [13-18], [19+]:
Mosques completed by century
Century Number completed
11th
1
12th
2
13th
19
14th
15
15th
16
16th
26
17th
18
18th
19
19th
46
20th
90

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus favors merging the 11th and 12th century categories; more discussion is needed to determine whether the rest of them should be merged or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lighthouse of Alexandria

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic of the articles in this category. It rather is a "what links here" collection. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the suggestion for a Category:Cultural depictions of the Lighthouse of Alexandria? If that happens, should we also delete this category?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Failed verification and WP:NONDEF issues. I checked several articles at random and most do not support the source of the claim of Native American descent being "self-identification" or that the individuals have not "shared proof of this heritage" (proof is not mentioned). The insinuation here is that these people are not genuinely of Native American descent but sources don't support (or contradict) that. As for some self-sourced claims of descent being false, that is true for all other types of descent but we justifiably don't have Category:People who self-identify as being of Sephardic Jewish descent. Furthermore, people saying "I'm Native American" in an interview, if they lack a genuine connection to Native American culture, is never going to meet the standard for categorization in WP:NONDEF. (t · c) buidhe 21:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe, I agree that these should be deleted per nom but definitely nominate all the subcategories too. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose. This was the subject of a very long CFD, the contributors of which should be pinged. Mason (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that there had been a prior CfD but the result is hard to reconcile with the P&G. Seems like a better solution to the identified problem might to be enforcing existing wp:defining rules or even eliminating Native American categories by descent that aren't for registered tribal members. The situation as it is now feels like Wikipedia trying to decide who is proven to be a real Native American or not—which the sources, in the vast majority of cases, don't allow us to do. (t · c) buidhe 02:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, it's unclear to me what differentiates this category tree from the People of Native American descent tree. Articles like Tiffany Darwish seem like they could be placed into either. What type of source is required to declare Native American identity "proven" rather than a mater of "self-identification"? (t · c) buidhe 02:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that almost all articles in the category fail verification as it is currently drafted. This is a problematic category, especially for BLPs. It is a subcat of Category:American people who self-identify as being of Indigenous descent, which makes the stronger claim that the indivudals have no proof of the heritage. (Previous parent categories put everyone in this category under Category:Native American cultural appropriation and Category:Transracial (identity), but those at least have been removed.) It is of limited use to have a category that groups together known frauds, people who have a genuine but incorrect belief that they have Indigenous ancestry, and people who do have Indigenous ancestry but a particular standard of proof hasn't been found in reliable sources.--Trystan (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Girls Baseball League players

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:NONDEF. Not a notable league which was limited to only one state and all of these players were better known for their time with the AAGPBL. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National shores of the United States

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: De-caps per WP:C2A. Similar nomination were opposed at CFDS (see other entries on today's log), so I am bringing this to a full discussion. BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 19:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Monuments of Colombia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: De-caps per WP:C2A. It was possibly opposed at CFDS (see the other discussions on today's log), so I am bringing this to a full discussion. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Monuments in Guyana

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: De-caps per WP:C2A. It was possibly opposed at CFDS (see the other discussions on today's log), so I am bringing this to a full discussion. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Parks in Indiana

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: De-caps per everything else in the tree of Category:National parks of the United States by state. It was possibly opposed at CFDS, so I am starting a full discussion. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National (P/p)arks of Canada

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: De-caps per WP:C2A. It was potentially opposed at CFDS, so I am bringing this to a full CFD. BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 19:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Thai political parties disestablished in 2024

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This isolated category is incorrectly using Template:PolParsDisEstCat and there's not a need to disffuse Political parties disestablished in 2024 by nationality Mason (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National (M/m)onuments in the United States categories

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D per List of national monuments of the United States. These were opposed as CFDS, so I am starting a full discussion. Pinging @Hey man im josh, Omnis Scientia, and RadioKAOS for their thoughts. BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 19:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy discussion
I guess you responded after I stopped checking regularly for a response, so thank you for the note on my talk page. DGG is deceased, so it's obviously not an option to seek his input. I'm opposed to using obscure corners of project space to bypass discussion on items which should be discussed. Some editors in those project spaces appear only interested in pursuing (a purely superficial notion ) consistency, often without regard for whether there was any consistency involved WRT consensus enroute to that point. Hence, my earlier mention venue-shopping. I have no strong opinion on capitalization variants other than they're often time wasters that stand in the way of moving the project forward. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer the question @RadioKAOS, we need to know whether you're opposing just the national monuments nominations, or also the national forest nominations. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I left them a message after the above reply on their talk page and I've left them another one now. We still need clarity on whether the objection is just to the national monuments renamings, or the other renamings as well, including the national forests. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a ridiculous failure of communication... They've been pinged for clarity four times and had three messages left on their talk page about this. Personally I think it's reasonable to proceed with all but the national monuments nominations since there's been a lot of effort made to seek out clarity on this and they're not providing it. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe they're talking about the monuments categories solely, but I'm obviously a bit biased as the nominator. Any thoughts @Ymblanter? Hey man im josh (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh, I full support this move but I'd say move this to full Cfd, just to be safe. At this point, it is safe to say this person is deliberatly ignoring you. If they have an objection, they can raise it there. If not, then they had numerous oppertunities to do so. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Natural Monuments of Nepal

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Capitalization fix; C2D per List of natural monuments in Nepal. It was sort of opposed as CFDS, so I am bringing this to a full CFD to be safe. Pinging @Hey man im josh, Omnis Scientia, and RadioKAOS for their thoughts. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National (F/f)orests categories

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Sort of WP:C2A, fixing capitalization. These were possibly opposed at CFDS, but to be safe I am initiating a full discussion. Pinging @Hey man im josh, Omnis Scientia, and RadioKAOS for their thoughts. BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 19:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish actors on Hogan's Heroes

[edit]
Convert Category:Jewish actors on Hogan's Heroes to article Jewish actors on Hogan's Heroes
Nominator's rationale: I think that this category needs a lot of context and thus should be a list/page not a category. Mason (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Folklorists of Color

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per WP:OCawards Mason (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retain -- This category is about a very specific group of folklorists, those that were named by the American Folklore Society. Some of those included are not African-American; some are Hispanic and Native American. Pete unseth (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not a reason to keep a category. This isn't defining. Mason (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison, I would say delete rather than merge since they aren't all African American. (I don't know why it is a subcategory of that though since that is the case). ETA: also manually add categories if needed. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking! I think manually merge is a good solution. I had added everyone already to the American folklorists. Mason (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Plant root morphology

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmege. There's no need to distinguish between plant roots and plant toor morphology. Note: The category creator was banned blocked for disruptive category creation. Mason (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The creator has not been banned. Please do not make statements that are both incorrect and irrelevant when they could be seen as canvassing a debate.
That said, upmerge Andy Dingley (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom.
@Andy Dingley, I agree with what you said but the creator has indeed been blocked - See here - and that they were blocked for disruptive category creation. Additionally, I think it is relevant in this case because this was one of the many categories they created just before they were blocked. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the ANI board and you were part of the convo there. So I'm guessing you meant something else by "bannned" since they are blocked from editing. I assumed they were interchangable. I'm guessing @Smasongarrison meant "blocked" as well. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant blocked. My bad. I've stricken and updated the nom. Mason (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cell division

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This category isn't helpful for navigation because it only has one page and a category. It's also a category created by a user blocked for disruptive category creation. Mason (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Nominator's rationale: We really don't need to intersection ethnicity/religion with area of scholarship. The category creator needs to review WP:EGRS.Mason (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, though - are you guys totally unaware that Jewish legal scholarship stretches back centuries? (Actually, millenia.) It is deeply embedded in Jewish culture, outlook and ethos - and intertwined with Western legal history. So it's not in the least surprising that there are so many Jewish people among the ranks of Category:American legal scholars - and that so many of the most well-known and widely cited American legal scholars are Jewish.
Here is a small selection of the "google blurbs" that turned up when I googled "Jewish legal scholars history", which should give you a sense of what I'm alluding to:
  • Jewish Law and American Law, Volume 2 - Academic Studies Press
Through careful comparative analysis, the essays also turn to Jewish law to provide insights into substantive and conceptual areas of the American legal system, ...
  • The Hebrews and the Foundation of Western Law
Starting as early as the second century A.D., Jewish scholars attempted to compile a code of laws from the Torah and other sources, which would assemble all ...
  • The Hidden Influence of Jewish Law on the Common Law Tradition
As Christian scholars sought contacts with Jewish intellectuals in order to...
  • Jewish Law: A Very Brief Account - David D. Friedman
Jewish law may be the best recorded legal system in the history of the world; there are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of pages of surviving ...
  • Oxford University Press - An Introduction to the History and Sources of Jewish Law
Jewish law has a history stretching from the early period to the modern State of Israel, encompassing: the Talmud, Geonic, and later codifications. // :Instead, the work would take a broader view and include material from the Dead Sea Scrolls, Hellenistic Egypt, Roman law, the Samaritans and the Karaites
  • Jewish Law Research Guide | University of Miami School of Law
The Post-Talmudic legal scholars are separated into three historical sub-periods: geonim (700-1050), reshonim (1050-1599), and aharonim (1600-today).
In closing, I've now added 15 more articles to this category, and there are scores more that can be added. Which reminds me: I also created Category:African-American legal scholars a few years back, which now has 42 articles. Like their Jewish counterparts, they bring their own outlook and ethos with them when they engage in legal scholarship. And lastly, I just created the "missing" parent cat, Category:Jewish legal scholars. There are scores of articles about non-American Jewish legal scholars waiting to be added. Anomalous+0 (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Church of Sweden clergymen in Colonial North America

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category is extremely narrow. I think it should either be merged to 17th/18th century American Lutheran clergy or renamed to Church of Sweden clergy from the Thirteen Colonies Mason (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:France and the Sea

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining/vague category. Mason (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nijisanji

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category with only a single entry. Partofthemachine (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of Mexican side in the Texas Revolution

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The current name sounds awkward and is confusing/inconsistent Mason (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Things in the United States that were built by slaves

[edit]
Convert Category:Things in the United States that were built by slaves to article Things in the United States that were built by slaves
Nominator's rationale: Unforuntely, I don't think that this is defining because these "things" aren't regularlly defined as built by slaves Mason (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


September 21

[edit]

Category:Loss of Canadian citizenship by prior Nazi affiliation

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category is extremely awkwardly named. I've made a tentative attempt, but I'd be really open to alternatives. Mason (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Loss of Canadian citizenship and deportation by prior Nazi affiliation

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories. We really don't need this level of intersection between nazi+canadian+legal status Mason (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Malayalam film

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Malayalam-language films https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Malayalam-language_films is the existing category Isoceles-sai (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ice planets

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to "Ice exoplanets"

The current contents of the category are all exoplanets, and it is likely that all future candidates for this category will also be exoplanets. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_planet - " there are many icy objects in the Solar System, none of them qualify as planets under the IAU definition of planet. " Isoceles-sai (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People of Middle Eastern descent

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 27#Category:Middle Eastern diaspora. I have already manually merged and redirected many Middle Eastern descent categories into West Asian descent categories. Only now have I realized that their history may also need to be merged. Below is the list --Sakakami (talk) 09:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all – the term “Middle Eastern” even if not necessarily geographically correct; is a lot more widely used than “West Asian”, therefore, I oppose the renames. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 03:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that is the whole problem with "Middle Eastern", it is vague, inaccurate, not geographically correct, eurocentric etc. and therefore often results in WP:ARBITRARYCATs and generalisations. Our categorisation should be unambiguous and "West Asia" is much clearer, even if it is not yet used as frequently as "Middle East". NLeeuw (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Manually merged
  • Comment – I understand the rationale, but I find this proposal and the previous ones that went through with very little discussion quite odd. "Middle Eastern" is a far more common term than "West Asian". Is there a reason we need to go that way instead of the reverse? If there are countries in West Asia that don't fit into the Middle East, is it necessary to group every country into a region for ancestry? Mclay1 (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mclay1 – We have categories for Category:People of Central Asian descent, Category:People of East Asian descent, Category:People of South Asian descent and Category:People of Southeast Asian descent. While both Middle East and West Asia are somewhat imprecise, West Asia aligns better with the existing geographic categorization. Middle East is a political term that has changed frequently depending on political and historical contexts, whereas 'West Asia' is a more consistent geographical term. It excludes most of Egypt and the northwestern part of Turkey, while including the southern part of the Caucasus. Additionally, 'West Asia' is arguably a more neutral term; for example, see the WANA Institute in Jordan. Sakakami (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those other Asian regions are common terms, whereas "West Asia" is basically a term created to fill the gap and replace the Middle East for the reasons you mentioned. While that might make sense for geography, I'm not sure it makes sense for ancestry. I doubt many people would consider themselves to be "West Asian" as opposed to Middle Eastern. It feels like we're inventing our own classification system just for the sake of having neat subcategories rather than reflecting outside usage. Mclay1 (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear. And "Middle East", as a term, doesn't necessarily imply the subject is located in Asia, whereas "West Asia" mandates it. As such, "West Asia" would exclude Egypt (Africa) and parts of Turkey (Europe), whereas "Middle East" wouldn't. While there are some places in "West Asia" that aren't in the Middle East, I think the latter category is more elastic by definition, whereas West Asia will always be only in Asia. But I could live with "ME & WA" as a category, or even "NA, ME & WA", but at that point, does it become the "Greater Middle East"? Lewisguile (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion on merge direction would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the entire category tree Most people wouldn't consider themselves "West Asian" or "middle Eastern" but Arab, Assyrian, Lebanese, etc. Also delete the other Asia region descent categories for the same reason. (t · c) buidhe 23:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support Delete the entire category tree as well per WP:NONDEF. --Sakakami (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge, including the untagged categories in the list above that were manually moved or merged out-of-process. Middle Eastern is the commonly-used term for the ethnicity, as evidenced by the recently-adopted U.S. federal government standards, which added "Middle Eastern or North African" as a race and ethnicity category. - Eureka Lott 16:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a single ethnicity, but rather a category encompassing people descended from West Asian (also known as Middle Eastern) countries. --Sakakami (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose merge. I appreciate the good intentions behind the proposal, but the Middle East is a different category than West Asia. It may include nationalities that are otherwise European or African, depending on whether one uses a broad or narrow definition of each. If someone identifies as having Middle Eastern heritage, but their origins are in North Africa or Europe, would we exclude them from the category? It doesn't make sense to me. It seems like an attempt for symmetry regardless of how these categories work in reality.
    That said, I could probably support a combined "Middle East and West Asia" category, but that may be a mouthful. At least no one is left out that way, though. Lewisguile (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lewisguile: if someone identifies as having Middle Eastern heritage, but their origins are in North Africa or Europe, -> can you give some example articles where this applies? Because I don't have a clue yet how it would work. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well I was thinking specifically of Egyptians in a list like "People of West Asian descent"—they aren't in West Asia, but are generally considered to be in the Middle East. And vice versa, someone in the South Caucasus might see themselves as West Asian but not Middle Eastern, so they couldn't go in a singular "People of Middle Eastern descent" article. (The former example seems more obviously wrong, though.)
      So replacing one category with the other means those people don't fit the new list so get left off, or we have to shoehorn them into categories where they don't fit. It's not like Egyptians are particularly rare, at any rate.
      The more I think about it, the more I think "Middle East and West Asia" is better than having one category subsume the other, though having two categories still seems the best to me. Lewisguile (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and long series of precedents (some of which I helped set). There is a huge amount of overlap between Middle East and West Asia; the latter is simply more accurate, doesn't carry all sorts of stereotypes, negative connotations and generalisations, and by excluding Egypt, we get a clean continental split between Asia and Africa. Lots of international organisations and researchers are already using "West Asia" instead of "Middle East", and sometimes "West Asia and North Africa (WANA)" instead of "Middle East and North Africa (MENA)". NLeeuw (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus currently favors a merge of some type. While that can, of course, change, we need more discussion on whether we should use the West Asian or Middle Eastern names. Those of you on the fence, do you have a slight preference? If there are no further comments in a week, this is heading for a WP:BARTENDER close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British premierships

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Similar naming scheme to Presidencies of the United States. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Tsabong

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only includes 1 person. Category formerly also contained a beauty pageant winner, deleted at AfD. Broaden out to the District which currently does not have a "people" category, as this is more likely to be populated in future. – Fayenatic London 14:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Botswana constituencies

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Manual merge from recently-created duplicate category. Target is currently a sub-cat so parent categories will need merging manually. – Fayenatic London 13:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Constituencies of the National Assembly of Botswana (historic)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with parent Category:Former constituencies. The "defunct" category duplicates the content. – Fayenatic London 13:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aficionado538 (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:De Blob

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Can you seriously call it a "franchise" with only 2 games? I don't think this category is big enough to qualify. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Subdivisions of Kievan Rus'

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename, Kievan Rus' was not a centralized country with administrative divisions, but at best a sort of a confederation to which principalities belonged. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a good idea to harmonise mainspace articles, categories and the template along these lines. NLeeuw (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Perhaps Uglich and Pereslavl-Zalessky could be included in the template above? We haven't got stand-alone articles of them being principalities, so we shouldn't add them to the nominated category, but From 1218 until 1328, Uglich was the seat of a small princedom, and Between 1175 and 1302, Pereslavl was the seat of a principality. There might be other pre-1240 Rus' principalities that we have missed so far that could be included in the category and/or template. NLeeuw (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Southend-on-Sea (district)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: As per AFD at County Borough of Southend-on-Sea, the boundaries between City and district are the same. Also there are individual category pages for suburbs of Southend.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Department stores in Southend-On-Sea (town)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Southend is now a city. As per afd on County Borough of Southend-on-Sea, there is no differentation between the city and district boundaries.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Southend-on-Sea (district)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: As per discussion at AFD for County Borough of Southend-on-Sea, the boundary for the city and the district are the same. Proposed merger into Southend-on-Sea (town) and rename this category. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Southend-on-Sea (district)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: As per discussion at AFD for County Borough of Southend-on-Sea, the boundaries for the city and district are the same. Eastbourne is good example of this which has one category for the whole town and district.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eastbourne is not the same as it is completely unparished unlike Southend (and as noted below the district article was kept). Southend actually has 3 potential definitions that we could use namely the smallest being the part of the district which has "Southend-on-Sea" as the post town, the next smallest being the unparished area which roughly covers both Southend and Westcliff-on-Sea post towns namely excluding Leigh-on-Sea parish and the largest being the whole district. There is also Southend Urban Area but in 2021 the was urban areas/BUAs seems to have changed so it may not still exist. That said I'm not sure maintaining separate categories for the settlement/unparished area and district is helpful as categories are generally less granular than articles so it may well be better to just merge all into 1 category covering all definitions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Southend-on-Sea (town)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Southend is now a city. Page was split previously as user believed district and town had different borders. This was discussed at AFD for County Borough of Southend-on-Sea which acknowledged they are same so should not be split. Eastbourne is a perfect example. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Churches in Southend-on-Sea (town)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Southend is now a city. Also AFD discussion at County Borough of Southend-on-Sea agreed that boundaries of the city and the district are the same Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


September 20

[edit]

Category:Party lists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Party lists are also lists of candidates. The distinction between the two categories isn't apparent and thus makes it harder to find similar lists in other countries. Dajasj (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your latest changes made it so that Category:Party lists in South African general elections is not part of Category:Lists of political candidates by nationality, which I believe it should be because it is a list of candidates. Dajasj (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For those favoring a merge, do you agree with the updated Category:Electoral lists target? There is no clear consensus on whether a merge should happen, so a relist is also to allow for participation to determine if there is consensus for any merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medical doctors in British media

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category for a non-defining intersection of unrelated traits. Medical doctors all over the world frequently appear as talking heads and experts in media coverage of health-related topics and/or moonlight as full-on health journalists themselves, so this would be entirely subjective and unmaintainable: should it contain every medical doctor who has ever appeared in media at all, or is there some specific and arbitrary minimum number of media appearances that a medical doctor has to make before they belong in this category?
So "medical doctors in media" is not a defining intersection of traits in its own right, meaning that no Category:Medical doctors in media parent or "Medical doctors in [Any Other Country] media" siblings exist at all, and Britain doesn't have any special need for this if no other country has such a thing. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make it okay. If no other country has one of these, then the UK doesn't need it either. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep anyway, but we should not be doing a three-card-trick, heads we win, tails you lose shuffle with Afd, as has happened before. Perhaps Afd closers should be made to check whether categories proposed as a solution are viable. For the ones I recognised it was defining, indeed the only reason most are notable - do you have examples where it isn't defining? These can be purged. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the issue is WP:OCARBITRARY. To be viable, this category would have to impose a cutoff as to how many times the doctor had appeared in media before the category became warranted, and it would be completely unmaintainable without such an arbitrary cutoff — but we don't allow categories with arbitrary cutoff criteria. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 19 September 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) 23:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that, & as you know "how many times the doctor had appeared in media" is information we will never have. We certainly don't apply this sort of draconian test to other categories. In fact the category seems fairly well-controlled. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is no argument. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Topical postage stamps

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Merge all; these categories have three or less items. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Cremastra's objection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shades of black

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: A black horse is not a shade of color, but color black is a defining characteristic of black horses. (BTW: we should do similarly for other subcats in Category:Shades of color, so that one could properly categorize fauna and flora notably associated with particular colors.) fgnievinski (talk) 03:20, 13 September 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) 23:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Regional WikiProjects

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Even if there is some kind of distinction here, this seems very minimal with a huge overlap (when categorized correctly). Gonnym (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)≤[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:WikiProjects by region; comments in general are needed to form consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1982 Japanese television episodes

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Categories newly created just to hold redirects. These would be fine if there were actual articles about Japanese or German television episodes from these years to file here, but are not needed just to hold redirects to television series. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This has only just been created. Allow a chance for it be populated rather than just delete it straight away. Also what is wrong with a category composed of redirects? --Jameboy (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Allow a chance for it to be populated" with what? The content has to exist first, and then the category to contain said content comes second, not vice versa. And the purpose of categories is to help readers find articles, not redirects — so while redirects can be included where appropriate in categories that also contain articles, categories that exist exclusively to hold redirects without articles are done only as hidden project tracking categories, and not as end-user browsing categories. I mean, if we just exhaustively created a redirect from every episode title that has ever existed to the television series it was an episode of, and categorized them all here, then how would that be helpful to a reader at all? Episode categories in the mainspace tree need to contain at least some actual standalone articles about the episodes themselves to be useful, and are simply not needed just to hold redirects. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a link to a relevant guideline concerning the above? I looked at WP:ACATR and WP:RCAT and couldn't find anything that would prevent a category from containing only redirects. --Jameboy (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The intro of WP:CAT says that "the central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to pages in Wikipedia within a hierarchy of categories". To, not between. Pages, not articles. It's true that most redirects aren't categorized in user-facing categories but WP:ACATR does allow for this in some specific circumstances and I think this falls under that. --Jameboy (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participants are needed to form consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:58, 12 September 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) 21:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pentose phosphate pathway

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Can someone take a look at these category (as well as others by DinosaursLoveExistence (talk · contribs)? I don't know enough chemistry to really evaluate whether this is actually defining or just more examples of non-defining/overcategorization by the same creator. Mason (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll drop a more urgent note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology. If there are no further comments in a week, I would close this as unopposed. But I really think the discussion would benefit from subject-matter experts' comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Categorizing an enzyme or molecule as participating in primary metabolism pathways makes a lot of sense. These metabolic pathways are essentially what powers cellular life and enzymes or molecules are usually described in that context in reliable sources - i.e. these enzymes/molecules are essential to life as they take part in [EXAMPLE] pathway. To me that sounds like a defining trait.
Examples from Wikipedia:
Enzyme/molecule Metabolic Pathway
Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase Pentose phosphate pathway
Pyruvate dehydrogenase complex Citric acid cycle
Fructose-bisphosphate aldolase Gluconeogenesis/Calvin cycle/Glycolysis
Glucose 6-phosphate Glycolysis/Pentose phosphate pathway
Of course, there are plenty of small molecules that are not defined by a primary metabolic pathway, but these are usually either the inputs or outputs of these pathways and can be categorized separately. ― Synpath 17:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Synpath's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films about couples

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Far too broad, and covered by categories for romance films, buddy films, etc. How many films are not about couples? A minority. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated places in the Middle East

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: the Middle East and West Asia are very overlapping. All subcategories are already in Category:Populated places in West Asia. Sakakami (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Anomalous+0's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religion in the Middle East

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: West Asia and the Middle East largely overlap, so we do not need both category trees. It is better to keep West Asia because it is consistent with other subcategories in Category:Religion in Asia by region. Sakakami (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or reverse merge per nom and rename dependent on the merge direction. There is also this discussion which is still open. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose - The reason these categories "largely overlap" is entirely because the regions themselves "largely overlap". An incovenient fact, perhaps, but a reality that Wikipedia is bound to respect - and that our categories must reflect. (There are many other overlapping category trees that we maintain simply because they reflect aspects of the real world.) Furthermore, the term "Middle East" is well-known to the great majority of readers, who are unlikely to be familiar with the term "West Asia". Anomalous+0 (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Anomalous+0's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:First-person shooter multiplayer online games

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This is a though one, but there are multiple reasons why this long-lasting category might not be as defining as everyone has once thought.

FPSMOGs are not a legitimate sub-genre of first-person shooters, while MMOFPSs considered one and Wikipedia has their own article on it. More importantly, most games in the FPS genre as whole will have online multiplayer, making it even more non-defining. This category isn't an entirely non-diffusing category and is also one of the only categories at the moment combing a genre and multiplayer online games.

This merge may make navigation harder, both the MOGs and FPS categories will contain 35-45 more articles, and that's okay. And besides not every single title that would fit into this category has been added here anyway.

For the subcategories we will instead replace the MMOFPSs category with category:Multiplayer online games and category:First-person shooters by series. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • question. okay, i see that you admit above that yes, there are many games that fall within this genre. ok. so your suggestion is that maybe we do not need a category to indicate them as multiplayer? i thought the category structure can encompass any valid distinctions. but is it truly the case that almost all fps games are multiplayer? if so, then maybe this suggestion would be viable. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of information. Of course many FPS games are MOGs! an MOG game is any game that takes place over a single round, and is not a persistent world. that is exactly what most fps games actually are!! such as Call of Duty, Doom (video game), Battlefield 2, etc etc! are you saying they are not?
Sm8900 (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to achieve consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:22, 12 September 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) 20:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military humor in film

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The category groups films by the distinct genre, name of which seems to be established at this point and supported by sources like [1]. And also the parallel category to this is Category:Military comedy television series. Solidest (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Purge in addition to renaming?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also purge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Compositions by Alexandre Desplat

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The category contains only Category:Films scored by Alexandre Desplat and List of awards and nominations received by Alexandre Desplat, the latter of which I removed from Category:Compositions by Alexandre Desplat for being inappriopriate. It now has only one entry, and such categories should be deleted. Mr slav999 (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American convicts who became writers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining/narrow intersection between occupation, criminal status, and nationality. Mason (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename? Broaden while renaming?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same question: Rename? Broaden while renaming?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Novels about Go

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge per WP:NARROWCAT. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:51, 31 August 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) 21:37, 12 September 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) 16:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films about neuropathology

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category Mason (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quibbling about whether its contents belong in there is an irrelevance to the existence of the category. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge target? This is heading for a WP:BARTENDER close, which is less than ideal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I intentionally chose Category:Films about diseases and disorders because the other target only contained this category (and had the same problems), which practically defeats the purpose of the merge. Mason (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spanish anarcho-syndicalists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant categorisation as most Spanish anarcho-syndicalists were members of the CNT and the few left over aren't meaningfully distinct from other categories of Spanish anarchists. Grnrchst (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this category just adds clutter AnarchistHistory (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also dual merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video game franchises by genre

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: As Category:Video game series by narrative genre was also renamed, replacing franchise with series, this category should be renamed to match with its subcategories. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the merge you have suggested (which isn't related to the renaming of this category) will break the current categorization scheme that has remained static for years. It is necessary since these categories make a border between franchises and other related content to a genre. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 22:27, 4 September 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) 16:16, 12 September 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) 16:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paralympic medalists in athletics (track and field)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Also, Category:Paralympic gold medalists in athletics (track and field)‎, respectively. Like Category:Olympic medalists in athletics (track and field), this category grows every four years, so being specific is useful, as para athletics is one of the events with the highest number of medals per Game. (CC) Tbhotch™ 05:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment @Tbhotch: I think the rationale doesn't align with your aim so it's worth reflecting on that. Unlike Olympic medalist biographies, most Paralympic medalist biographies are for people who have won multiple Paralympic medals. Often they've won 2 different kinds and frequently all 3 kinds. I plucked the first name in my head Jonnie Peacock and, behold, he has won Paralympic gold, silver and bronze. The end result of a by-medal split will probably be three categories that are maybe 80% of the same articles, which isn't too useful for navigation. I think a by nationality split would be far better for this tree (e.g. Category:Paralympic medalists in athletics (track and field) for Great Britain). SFB 21:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Sillyfolkboy's suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same question: Thoughts on Sillyfolkboy's suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Magritte Award winners

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:COPSEP, we should not have a mix of biographical and non-biographical articles in the same category so this needs to be split somehow. Open to other naming schemes however. --woodensuperman 08:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split per nom. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chiropractors by nationality

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary additional layer. Category:Chiropractors is already near empty with just three articles and this one subcat, and this subcat only has 11 subcats, so it's not doing much diffusion. Upmerge all subcats to Chiropractors. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Anomalous+0's objection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same question: Thoughts on Anomalous+0's objection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games with alternative versions

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category is oriented towards a non-defining and trivial trait. The "alternate versions" of the games in question consist of ports with different content or features mostly due to technical restrictions, HD/remastered versions, deluxe/collectors editions, and versions with both intentionally alternate titles and content. As you can see, the criteria for this category is not consistent; there's no way it can be defining, nor a category entitled "Video games with alternate titles in PAL regions". QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games in Hong Kong

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Video gaming in Hong Kong already exists, however this is the only category in the tree of Category:Video gaming by country that hasn't been renamed to match up with the names of other categories.

QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Asian-American drama films

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Hyphenating heritage such as "Asian-American" or "African-American" doesn't seem to be the standard anymore. AP made this style change in 2019, following other style guides that have done the same. Additionally, this would bring the category in line with the related Wikipedia page titles (eg Asian Americans and Asian American activism). Probably a discussion of removing the hyphen from many related categories to be had, but I'm new to CfD and will try this one first. Thanks. Pingnova (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


September 19

[edit]
[edit]
Nominator's rationale: {{r from external link}} has been deleted, so I believe this is eligible for speedy deletion under WP:C4, but 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:D69:7CF2:4B8A:3610 contested this because Liz recently tagged the category with {{emptycat}}. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy is only intended for uncontroversial deletions, and the recent tagging demonstrates that deletion is not uncontroversial. There was limited discussion of these cases previously with some feeling that pages tagged with Template:Emptycat should never be eligible for C4, and others being OK if the template was a holdover from a past time that was no longer applicable. Regardless, given the timing here C4 should not be used.
Anyway, XFD is flatly better to speedy deletion in every aspect except volume management, and the clearer consensus created by discussion is often of value going forward. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BCD7:AA73:70F1:F07C (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I created the now-deleted rcat template and companion category several years ago because consensus at the time was that we should maintain malformed incoming link targets. This largely had to do with a bug in Reddit markup which caused some links with trailing punctuation to omit a closing parenthesis in the actual hyperlink, which meant that links from Reddit to Wikipedia pages with parenthetical disambiguators were frequently broken. That bug seems to have long since been corrected. Consensus now seems to be that we should let any remaining malformed incoming links rot instead, and so such redirects will generally always be deleted (unless some other rcat applies), and this category will always be empty. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic literature

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: An unnecessary group of subcategories made by the same blocked disruptive user. There are not enough actual pages to merit the existence of subcategories, and they can easily fit within the parent category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: They should all be dual-merged into the matching "Star Wars X" or "X based on Star Wars" parent categories as well if necessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Years of the 20th century in North Vietnam

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, duplicate scope in South Vietnam, all years were in the 20th century. Rename North Vietnam for consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Closed military installations

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I can see no useful distinction between "closed" and "former". – Fayenatic London 07:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag all of the "former" categories. Discussion on direction of renaming/merging would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator is absolutely right about distinction between the two terms. However, semantically speaking "closed" implies a certain process that makes a particular object "former". Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will there be a change like instead of "Former country" to "Closed country" in order to make everything uniform? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aleksandr Grigoryev: Absolutely not!
I commend HouseBlaster for making a full nomination for the reverse merge option. However, I cannot think of any examples where Buckshot06's concerns would lead to pages being miscategorised or categories being unhelpfully misinterpreted. I therefore think that there is insufficient reason to use "Closed" as an exception to the predominant use of "Former" in this hierarchy.
However, there is another widespread alternative: "Defunct", which is used for 21 of 59 sub-cats in Category:Former buildings and structures by type. Personally, I would prefer to use "Former" throughout, but some editors have expressed a clear preference for "Defunct" in certain cases, and I would not object to it. Would other participants prefer to use that word for military installations? – Fayenatic London 19:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Selena y Los Dinos

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous parent category here is unnecessary just for a members subcat, especially since Category:Selena exists. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is enough to warrant an eponymous category for the group. Plus, the Selena category serves the same purpose and is more all encompassing. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 07:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two subcategories and Selena y Los Dinos in this category as of relisting. Is this enough for it to be kept?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comics retailers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: split, we do not usually mix biographies and companies. This is a kind of undoing of the result of this 2008 discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Comics retailers in Canada.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Infectious disease deaths in the Seljuk Empire

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, category contains only one article which is not helpful for navigation. Merging is not needed, the article is also in Category:Infectious disease deaths in Syria. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Furry stubs

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub category with little prospect of expansion to the required size. As always, stub categories are not free for just any user to create on a whim for any topic of personal interest -- there have to be at least 60 articles to file in a stub category before it can be created, and for that very reason stub categories have to be proposed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting for discussion before they can be created. But this was never proposed for discussion, and there's only one article here with no prospect of finding 59 others quickly: the mainspace category Category:Furry fandom doesn't even contain 60 articles total across it and all of its subcategories combined, and what it does contain isn't all (or even mostly) stubs.
The template isn't as much of a problem -- the minimum bar for a stub template isn't 60 articles, as templates can file articles into higher-level stub categories in the meantime even if they don't yet have enough articles to get their own dedicated category. So I'm fine with keeping it if somebody can think of an appropriate higher-level category that it can be moved to -- but as a stub template does have to file its entries somewhere, it also has to be deleted if a replacement stub category can't be found. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British businesspeople in the natural gas industry

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Contains only a single article which is about the chief executive of an energy supplier. AusLondonder (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Georgian–Seljuk wars

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename, per actual content, except for one article they are all about battles. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Catering and food service companies of Scotland

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Contains no articles and only a subcat not about catering and food service companies (Category:Hotels in Scotland) AusLondonder (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lutilodix

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: https://doi.org/10.1071/IS22049 NotAGenious (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this source proposing a revision or establishing a revision? That is not very clear. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From the abstract, Furthermore, we confirm the previous treatment of Lutilodix, Parcolena and Dolapex as junior synonyms of Fanulena. I don't see why this matters, though, as it's just a move to the correct name. The pages in the category have been moved already, too. NotAGenious (talk) 05:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Finishing (construction)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Useless category containing a single article. AusLondonder (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Places named after Canadian politicians

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SHAREDNAME violations. Per longstanding consensus, we do not categorize things for who or what they were named after. Bearcat (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fire prevention in the United Kingdom

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only subcat by country in the Category:Fire prevention tree and contains only a single redirect to Building regulations in the United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:University and college field hockey venues in the United Kingdom

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge this underpopulated category Category:University and college field hockey venues in the United Kingdom (1). Mason (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:College sports teams by university

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Redudant category layer Mason (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Subfields of astrophysics

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Duel upmerge. This category is underpopulated, and not helpful for navigation with only two pages in it Mason (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hyperinflations

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Duel merge. There are only two pages in here that, which isn't helpful for navigation. If not merged, the category should be renamed to Hyperinflation to reflect the topic category Hyperinflation Mason (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Olympic Games swimming controversies

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I think we should purge and selectively merge this category because olympic swimming controversies are vague, and we don't really have enough content in Swimming controversies that are non-olympic to justify diffusing Mason (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:TripleS (group)

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Nominator's rationale: The group doesn’t require disambiguation. The category should simply be renamed to "TripleS." Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 08:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. How do I withdraw my request? Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 08:53, 19 September 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:Stations of Tokyo Toden

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, only one article in the category, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tram stops in Switzerland by municipality

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, only one subcategory in the category, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with the Livonian Order

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename, "associated with" is unnecessarily vague. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Game jam video games

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Having been initially created as part of a game jam is not defining for these games. While it can be an interesting factoid that shows how game jams help inspire developers, my guess is that most players of Celeste, Inscryption, etc. don't know or care that it originated in a game jam, and it certainly isn't mentioned prominently in the gaming media. That makes this category fail WP:NONDEF. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because some players may not know the game originated from a game jam doesn't invalidate that there is recognization of what game jams produce in the industry as a whole, so this is a defining category. Also, "not mentioned prominently in gaming media" can be disproven with sources, [2], [3], [4] etc. --Masem (t) 03:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't read the first two sources but the third is surely irrelevant for this discussion. It proves notability of the topic, but it does not prove that it is defining for e.g. Amnesia Fortnight 2012. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant is that it is not typically mentioned when the gaming press talks about a particular game. Of course, game jams are notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's needed to show how games created through game jams are recognized post release as such games, it becomes a matter of picking examples, and this will depend on the impact of the game and relationship to coverage.
    A well known game is Inscryption and those sources are plenty eg [5], [6], [7]. Or Goat Simulator, [8], [9], [10].
    The idea is comparable to how a projects originates such as in Category:Crowdfunded video games and even to a degree of Category:Indie games (though here this has no question of being defining). The implication that players may not care about these is short sighted since these are a significant vector of new games into the industry and the industry recognizes the importance of game jams. — Masem (t) 19:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Surnames of Lechitic origin

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Completely redundant very thin linguistic layers. --Altenmann >talk 00:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


September 18

[edit]

Category:Fictional criminal organizations

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: "Criminal organization" and "organized crime group" are synonymous. No reason for separate categories to exist. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of language education

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful for navigation as only contains two redirects. Appears to be limited scope for expansion. AusLondonder (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Documentary television series about higher education

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. There's only one page in this underpopulated category. Mason (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Districts of Uddevalla

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename merge, technically these are "localities" in Uddevalla Municipality but "populated places" is the term more often used in categories. Villages or hamlets are also okayish, but the current "districts" does not make any sense. After renaming to populated places, Uddevalla may be added to the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Both categories currently exist. Are you proposing a merge? jlwoodwa (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Subdivisions of Landskrona

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. For context, Landskrona is a town with just over 30.000 people. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Landskrona IP

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCVENUE, we do not have venue categories containing incidental events. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Centuries in Gelsenkirchen

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the parent category is otherwise empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Association Triple Crown winners

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:NARROWCAT; there are only going to be two articles here because the league, while considered a major league, was a brief one. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Narrow cat definitely applies. Further the pages can just be interlinked. FYI. The wall of text is from the category creator, who isn't engaging in the concerns raised in the nomination and instead seems to assume that the nominator has an agenda. Omnis is making an extremely reasonable nomination. That I would have made had I come across the category first. Mason (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, and note that this nomination is A) by the same person who nominated the parent category for deletion less than three months ago, and B) carried out in concert with a series of other moves depopulating the category Category:Major League Baseball Triple Crown winners by removing subcategories for Negro League and American Association players. The supposed rationale for removing the Negro Leagues was that although considered "Major Leagues", they're not part of "Major League Baseball", and therefore only get to go under "baseball", not "Major League Baseball", which must only contain subcategories for the American League and National League. The nominator also didn't bother to notify me of this nomination, which I only discovered when checking what changes had been made to an item on my watchlist.
The overall effect of these moves is to make all other triple crown winners harder to find by adding unnecessary side-branches in the category tree, just so that the main category will only contain American League and National League players. It's ironic that this nomination is based on the category being a small one that can't be expanded, when the nominator has reduced another category (which the nominator previously argued shouldn't even exist) from seven items to four, and seeks to preclude any others from being added to it.
The pretext given is that "Major League Baseball" refers to an organization consisting only of the American League and National League, and therefore excludes all other leagues. This can only cause confusion for readers, who will expect all "Major League" triple crown winners to be included, and either assume incorrectly that there must not be any others, or wonder why they have been excluded. Shunting all other triple crown winners into "baseball" along with topics about the minor leagues and amateur baseball carries the message that they are inherently lesser achievements. Nothing useful is accomplished by making the whole category structure more complicated, and hiding or deleting subcategories so that their members are harder to find. P Aculeius (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius, please see WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH and WP:NARROWCAT; only two articles aren't enough to warrant a category. I apologize for not informing you; I'm guess the Twinkle setting glitched but it was not my intention.
Also see this discussion about this AFD about keeping the leagues distinguished due to Ngl players being deliberately kept out of the two MLB leagues - the NL and the AL - and are distinct leagues because of that. Retroactive recognition by MLB will not change the reality these players played in. Omnis Scientia (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You tried to eliminate the parent category, and now less than three months later, you're depopulating it by moving or proposing to delete its subcategories. Your rationale for deleting the American Association category is that it only contains two entries, and can't be expanded; but in the process you're reducing the parent category from seven items to four, and precluding it from being expanded. That looks very much like a pattern, as well as a set-up for renominating the main category for deletion.
Your distinction of "Major League Baseball" consisting only of the American and National Leagues is flawed, both because the description of a "major league" is officially defined to include the American Association and Negro Leagues (as well as several other leagues that didn't produce any triple crown winners), which should therefore be included under the same heading in the category tree; but also because as a legal entity "Major League Baseball" did not exist until 2000, meaning that under your criteria for inclusion there has only been one "Major League Baseball triple crown winner": Miguel Cabrera in 2012. Every other member of the four remaining subcategories preceded the formation of "Major League Baseball", and would thus have to be excluded as well. The distinction that you're making produces a nonsensical result.
The AFD you refer to is about whether it made sense to keep a list of Negro League players who later played in the Major Leagues, which was nominated for deletion because Negro Leaguers are now officially considered Major Leaguers, and therefore all of them played in the Major Leagues. The discussion was closed as "keep" in just over a day since nobody agreed with the nomination. Some of those who replied made a point of how at the time they existed the Negro Leagues were most definitely not considered Major Leagues; but the respondents' point was not that they were not Major Leagues, but that the distinction made prior to integration was relevant to whether such a list was worth having. Thus the AFD to which you refer is not pertinent to this discussion.
The fact that Major League Baseball—and most other organizations devoted to recording the history of the Major Leagues—recognizes the statistics of the Negro Leagues, American Association, Union Association, Players' League, and Federal League on par with those of the American and National Leagues, means that there is no justification for excluding all records other than those of the American and National Leagues from the heading of "Major League Baseball"; it is a distinction without a practical difference. This is not to say that these records should not be grouped by league; doing so is traditional for many reasons. The part that makes no sense is to consider the American and National Leagues together, and keep them separate from the eleven other leagues that are also considered to have been "Major Leagues".
Normally I would agree that a subcategory with only two entries is unnecessary; but all of the other Major League triple crown winners are categories by league, and eliminating the American Association category would require its entries to be diffused into the parent category, which is a container category without any other individual entries. But what you have done is removed the Negro Leagues as well, and shunted them into "baseball" rather than "Major League Baseball". And this makes them harder to find, or to put it another way, makes the category tree harder to navigate. The advantages of keeping all categories of Major League triple crown winners within the same container category outweigh any value in the technical distinction between "Major League Baseball" and "the Major Leagues", or any concern about there being only two entries under "American Association triple crown winners". If you were going to diffuse the latter's members into a parent category, you ought also to diffuse the other subcategories; that would mean fifty-four entries currently sorted into six subcategories.
The whole scheme of moves and deletions produced today only makes a mess of what had been a simple and intuitive category tree, and if it isn't intended to resurrect the argument for deleting the parent category from last June, then its only justification is splitting hairs by distinguishing between "the Major Leagues" and "Major League Baseball"—itself a dubious proposition, since the American and National Leagues were separate entities until 2000. This nomination should be withdrawn, since the category is justified as a necessary subcategory of a container category that should include the nominated category's contents, along with the two Negro League categories that were simultaneously removed from it—and which should be restored. P Aculeius (talk) 06:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius, I won't be reading through that since you're clearly not assuming good faith. All I will say is that my only object to the MLB triple crown category was the term "winners" since I don't think its something which can be won but rather should be earned. Of course, many people thought otherwise and made good arguments which I ultimately agree with so I respect that.
And the Ngl categories are still seperate from MLB ones; hence why I referred to the AFD because I wasn't going to make that argument all over again when many have done so there eloquently. That's the current status quo; its complicated and you can disagree but that's how it was decided.
But none of that complicated debate has anything to do with THIS CFD which is based on WP:NARROWCAT and nothing else. I would appreciate if you don't derail this Cfd with long, unreadable texts which are unrelated. MLB is the NL and AL to most people who don't even know about the brief leagues before modern MLB began at the turn of the 20th-century. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, in most cases I would have immediately supported a nomination like this. The reason I didn't, this time, is because the target contains almost no articles in the root, and it is not likely there will be other articles any time soon (if only because this is not a batch nomination). I am not against the merge but the navigational benefit of the merge is limited. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle, it is quite tricky in this case because their achievements are very different and the league's records aren't fully documented. I do think there is a solution where these two articles and their achievements can be better and more specifically categorized. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Omnis Scientia: can you please elaborate what the solution would be? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Marcocapelle, well two solutions. I've been skimming through MLB categories and, as I've mentioned above but now can confirm, the only leagues fully categorized are the AL and NL - by achievement, by awards, etc. - due to them being the two leagues have defined MLB over a century (150 years in one case). So the simplest and, IMO, best solution is to delete this category as the list suffices.
      The second is not the best but the "Triple Crown (baseball)" category be divided into pitching and hitting and this way, the two articles can be better categorized and the KBO players in the list can be added there too. But, again, I would much rather just delete this category rather than wade into what would can potentionally become a complicated category tree if we try to categorize this league and others like it in the way the current MLB ones are. I don't think its worth the trouble just for the sake of two articles. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Omnis Scientia: correct me if I'm wrong, if you think only AL and NL should stay, are you planning to propose upmerging the Nippon and Negro categories as well? If that is the case a batch nomination would be more appropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @Marcocapelle, no because those aren't old MLB leagues - Nippon is the Japanese major league and Negros Leagues were the MLB equivalent for African American players - they recently recognized as such - back when MLB was segregated. Hence why they aren't in the MLB category and why I created a new "Triple Crown (baseball)" category to house them.
        The American Association (AA) was once part of MLB in the 19th-century but folded after a few years - and, unlike the others, which have multiple people to achieve this distinction, it had relatively few stars. In this case, the two players in this category achieved two different things which are related only by name. So applying WP:NARROWCAT seemed reasonable to me. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Adding to this: I moved the American Association category to this one because I assumed this was a straight forward nomination and merging would be made easier this way. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: if its not against the rules, please disregard the category creator's oppose vote and base closing this category based on the others. The creator was assuming bad faith and insinuating that I had an agenda by starting this Cfd. Their vote is not based on any policy but entirely on attacking my intentions. If anything, please read my reasoning and close or relist based on that. Best regards, Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second note to closer: please disregard the above bad faith comment—I'm not assuming here; if the nomination was not in bad faith, the above comment clearly is. I gave several valid reasons for opposing this proposal, then elaborated on them when the nominator rejected them, only to have the nominator state point blank that he refused to read what I said. Being the category creator is not a valid reason for having my opposition disregarded, nor is pointing out that the nominator previously tried to eliminate the parent category, and subsequently removed most of its contents after that nomination failed—particularly when the rationale for this nomination is that the category is small. But I will restate my other reasons for opposing the nomination:
(1) Major League Baseball officially recognizes both the American Association and the Negro Leagues as "major leagues", and that all major references prior to the inclusion of the latter already included American Association records as "major league" records (along with several others that are universally so treated), making the distinction being drawn by the nominator both technical and idiosyncratic.
(2) The American League and National League were themselves separate entities, and did not amalgamate into "Major League Baseball" until 2000; by insisting that a category listing major league baseball triple crown winners should only include players from "Major League Baseball", the nominator is excluding all National League triple crown winners and all but one of the American League winners as well. This creates an unexplained inconsistency, since these and all of their contents are still subcategories.
(3) Readers would naturally expect to find all major league triple crown winners in the same category, rather than having the American and National Leagues in one subcategory, and all other major league triple crown winners in the same category with Japanese and Korean baseball (and presumably any other international or minor leagues that might have produced triple crowns). The resulting category structure is confusing and counterintuitive; it does a disservice to readers by hiding subcategories that they would expect to find in the main category, giving the impression that there are no other major league triple crown winners, or alternatively that they are not on par with those of the American or National Leagues, when they have been officially so declared, and when those of the nominated category have always been so considered. P Aculeius (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius, respectfully, you did not at all give any reasons with regards to THIS nomination and that's why I did not read through all your reasons. You went on a rant about baseball leagues which should be discussed on WP:Baseball, not on here. Please don't derail this Cfd with unrelated topics. This is a straight forward WP:NARROWCAT and the two Triple Crown winners won two different types of triple crowns; on top of that AA league leaders aren't categorized (same case with all defunct leagues). Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a lot of noise here. This is a content forum, not a conduct forum. If you think someone is acting in bad faith, WP:ANI is thataway. So – everyone – knock it off. With that out of the way: More uninvolved participation is needed to form consensus. Should we have some articles directly in Category:Triple Crown (baseball) winners?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster, my apologies. I only nominated this as a simple WP:NARROWCAT nomination and for no other reason. I honestly didn't expect such a huge reaction from the creator when I was simply following the policy set by the Baseball WikiProject. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, @Smasongarrison, how about deleting this category? merging will not help and since there isn't really a place where these can be properly categorized - that would require a further split into two categories like the rest - deletion is the best course IMO. Defunct MLB leagues' - regardless of status - statistical leaders aren't categorized as it is.
Asking for a consensus here. Thanks. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Film post-production technology

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Post-production isn't a defining characteristic for these pages Mason (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Response to Johnbod's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose keeping the companies, but I think that making the distinction between when in the film production process the technology is used seems unhelpful. Mason (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bordeaux tramway stops

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not familiar with public transportation in France but it looks like these categories are duplicates of each other. Since this category is the only category in Category:Tram stops in France by system, it seems wiser to merge this category rather than doing a merge in the opposite direction. Liz Read! Talk! 17:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:East German swimming people

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Do we really need "Swimming people categories" like this? Mason (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge the rest?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Persecution of Greeks in the Ottoman Empire before the 20th century

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OCMISC, this is an "all-other" category (other than the 20th century). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maltese pop singer navigational boxes

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I see little reason to diffuse here. There are no other Maltese genre nav box categories for musicians. Just adds another layer/level of categorization/navigation that is unnecessary. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Script–font templates, deprecated

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This template had two pages which were deleted in TfD. If a template is unwanted, it should be sent to TfD or tagged with a deprecation template. This type of category is unhelpful and usually ends up lost. Gonnym (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Libertarian Party of Canada

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category for a small political party. User:Namiba 15:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of the Maratha Confederacy

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of the University of Manchester

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Contains a single article which is not specifically about the history of the University of Manchester. AusLondonder (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pedophilia in the Catholic church

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: A duplicate of Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals, contains only subcategories, one which is already in the existing category. AusLondonder (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:German Research Foundation

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Recently created category serves no purpose, only contains the main article. AusLondonder (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah German Research Foundation should be there unfortunately the creator of this category removed it from that category. AusLondonder (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deutscher Wetterdienst

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Another recently created category with only a single article contained within. Serves no purpose. AusLondonder (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Foreign relations of the Kingdom of Georgia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2nd millennium in the Kingdom of Georgia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, duplicate of Category:Centuries in the Kingdom of Georgia. The existence of the Kingdom of Georgia is wholly limited to the 2nd millennium. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Opposition to Ferenc Gyurcsány

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category was already deleted by discussion once. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ojarumaru episode lists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per content. Solidest (talk) 09:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Attack on Titan episode lists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per content. Currently, such categories are predominantly called '.... seasons'. Solidest (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of Numbers (TV series) episodes

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per content. Articles about seasons are distinct from lists of episodes articles and are neither lists nor included in the hierarchy of 'lists of episode' categories. Solidest (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of Law & Order episodes by season

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per content. 'Lists of episodes' categories should include 'Lists of episodes' articles. Solidest (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Union Nationale des Étudiants de France

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: No purpose of a category with only a single article (the main article Union Nationale des Étudiants de France) AusLondonder (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. This could be speedied Mason (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hotels in Hainan

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category only contains 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Emergent gameplay

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:TRIVIALCAT WP:SUBJECTIVECAT

Emergent gameplay refers "complex" situations in games that emerges from relatively "simple" mechanics. The criteria for inclusion is a little vague and the definition of a bit opinionated when you think about it. Emergent gameplay already mentions some of the articles listed here too. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I made this category (wow, 18 years ago?!) before I properly understood the role of a category. It is somewhat of a subjective definition. Categories should be clear and objective. Thanks for spotting this QuantumFoam. Marasmusine (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


September 17

[edit]

Category:Precision FC players

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: A semi-anonymous club. I don't think it deserves a category, especially since it only has two players, and the sources that mention that they play for it are from a blogging site and social media. EpicAdventurer (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Superoxide generating enzymes

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There's only one page and a redirect in this category. Upmege for now as it's not helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Toxic enzymes

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category isn't very helpful with only one page in it. Mason (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also not meaningfully different from Category:Protein toxins and can be merged/redirected into that. ― Synpath 11:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Related: while updating Category:Protein toxins with Botulinum toxin I found Category:Biological toxin weapons - a bizarrely named, small category with mostly protein toxins within it. I removed the small molecule toxins from it and think it should be merged to Category:Protein toxins. ― Synpath 12:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saint Paul Seminary School of Divinity alumni

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The seminary no longer uses the School of Divinity title in its name or branding and has not for the past several years.~Darth StabroTalk/Contribs 19:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, duplicate of Category:Military of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. I would not object renaming the latter to Category:Military history of the Republic of Afghanistan. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SpaceX astronauts

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Prior to September 2024, all astronauts listed in Category:SpaceX astronauts had simply flown on a SpaceX capsule launched on a SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle. Now, with the completion of the recent private spaceflight mission Polaris Dawn, two SpaceX employees—Sarah Gillis and Anna Menon—have been astronauts (while employed by SpaceX) on this recent commercial spaceflight. It would be confusing to categorize the two of them as merely the sense of astronauts who have flown on SpaceX equipment, as they are also SpaceX employees, and are categorized in Category:SpaceX employee astronauts. (more emplyees are planned to fly on future spaceflights). N2e (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lechitic nobility

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Arbitrary category: Lechites did not have nobility, because applying the concept of nobility to ancient tribes would be an anaccronism. More important: there is no sources that discuss "Lechitic nobility". --Altenmann >talk 18:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Had most of them extinc early 11century like Nankonids, Jaxa of Copnic, Wiprecht of Grotzich, House of Wizlaus, Drogowit, Pribislaw of Branderburg, Jaromir of Rugia, Wenceslaus Kottwitz and others has only conetction here to Lechites. They where west Slavic Lechitic nobilites finished 11century mostly. Cannot put them Nowhere else.End also Pomeranian noobility and Sorbian are subclass and part by tree of Lechitic nobility. 2001:9E8:54F4:4900:B15A:EA5:7F4B:676A (talk) 02:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You provided no evidence to your claims. And you are adding articles to your categories without supporting evidence in articles. You are editing from a dozen of IP addresses without having a Wikipedia user account. This makes any discussion with you impossible, because you are not answering to notices left in talk pages of these random IP accounts. --Altenmann >talk 04:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century disestablishments in East Germany

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, duplicate of Category:Disestablishments in East Germany by decade because the entire history of East Germany stayed within the 20th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sports executives by sports organizations

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Delete; any category that can fit here is already fitted in the much better organized Category:Sports executives by sport. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baseball players from Northern Ireland

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Delete and dual merge per nom. Only one article and that of the same person. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Major League Baseball players from Ireland

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge; so all these players, as stated in the category itself, were born in pre-1922 Ireland when it was still part of the UK. So I suggest this be merged with the UK category BUT also that it be allowed to be recreated if there are, in the future, enough players born in post-1922 Ireland to justify a category. This way, any confusion can be avoided. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Despite being technically correct, as a way to categorise players I don't see it as valuable to a reader. IMO moving "United Kingdom" to "Great Britain" would make more sense. Cashew.wheel (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cashew.wheel, that would cut out anyone from Northern Ireland then. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was initially going to do Cfd a merge all constitunency nation categories for this into the parent category since they are, historically less than a hundred UK-born players in MLB history. What do you think of that suggestion? Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baseball venue navigational boxes

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge to parent categories with no objection to recreation if there are more templates fitting the criteria of this page. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from the State of Palestine

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: My previous proposal to disambiguate was closed due to a lack of consensus, with some reasonable arguments referencing the millions of Palestinians in the diaspora who are not from the State of Palestine. Therefore, I propose a merge. No other country makes a distinction similar to that between Category:French people and Category:People from France. Sakakami (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT categories, round 3

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: A third (much smaller) batch of categories which were omitted from batch 1 and batch 2. Rename to add the Q per WP:CONSUB and WP:C2D per Talk:LGBTQ#Requested move 14 August 2024. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CFDS discussion

Category:Former objects

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Would it be correct to call these "former objects"? After all, a mine being shut down doesn't make it disappear, and being smashed into a million pieces doesn't remove something from existence. I don't think this category makes that much sense, and is heavily overlapping either way, so it should be merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
some of the items in former objects probably should not be there. a mine is not an object, its a geographical or even geological feature, not an object. its a structure of sorts. however, i still stand by this as my effort to create broader and broader categories up to the most basic categories on WP. maybe cull some categories out of it. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The possible problems with the mine example aside, I agree with the nomination insofar as these here do not stop being objects as such, but they are no longer the type of object they once were. So the category makes sense in this regard. I can't think of a better title which describes this 100% accurately and remains concise at the same time, so I would tend to keep it as a helpful organizational tier as described by Fayenatic london. Category:People by former status likewise seems a good idea to have. Daranios (talk) 08:43, 14 September 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) 03:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Elite 11 participants

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This is a high school football competition. It is a non-defining characteristic User:Namiba 20:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A list of participants on the main article (Elite 11) exists, making this a defining category. It being limited to high school players shouldn't be the only argument for deletion as it is a national competition by invite only. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taking part in this competition is a minor part of any player's career. It would definitely not be suitable for an introduction and sources do not consistently refer to it. Per WP:NONDEF, "a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject.

if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead section of an article (regardless of whether it is currently mentioned in the lead), it is probably not defining; if the characteristic falls within any of the forms of overcategorization mentioned on this page, it is probably not defining."--User:Namiba

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Second overall NFL draft picks

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: A non-defining category. User:Namiba 19:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As a main article (List of second overall NFL draft picks) exists, the category should be considered defining. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is defining to be the first overall draft pick since that person is the FIRST of the draft and is considered to be the best player of all the picks. The second overall is the 30th-something pick in the draft and, while still great, is not going to be. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The second overall is the 30th-something pick in the draft" It's not the 30th pick, it's the 2nd. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiOriginal-9, you know, that's my bad, I mistook second OVERALL as second ROUND! But the point still stands. It still isn't defining in the way it is for a first overall. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would the same logic be applied to the article then? I only made the category to match it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dissident93, articles and categories have different criteria so the existance of the article isn't relevant to the Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like WP:COMMONSENSE to me. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dissident93, your argument is that the category should exist because there is an article listing them. But that isn't how we categorize things at all. Just because there is a list article of something, it doesn't have to or even need to be categorized.
Second overall picks are WP:NONDEFINING and WP:TRIVIALCAT. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:16, 13 September 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) 03:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Habsburg Bohemia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename to same format as subcategories of Category:History of the Habsburg monarchy by country. It is not speediable because a redirect Habsburg Bohemia exists. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:German expatriates in the Czech lands

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, these weren't expatriates since Bohemia and Moravia were part of the Holy Roman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the Chamber of Representatives of Belgium

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Belgium has a bicameral legislature. These categories are intended for members of the Chamber of Representatives, the lower chamber. There are separate categories for members of the Senate, the upper chamber. Using the term "legislature" in the category makes it ambiguous.Obi2canibe (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How would that help overpopulation? We already have several hundred articles on English Wikipedia for Belgian MPs and this could potentially increase to more than 3,000 articles. Assuming an even distribution, that's 2,250 20th century members and 750 21st century members.--Obi2canibe (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical monuments in Uzbekistan

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, apart from mausoleums the category does not contain monuments and memorials. The mausoleum articles are already in Category:Mausoleums in Uzbekistan, part of Category:Monuments and memorials in Uzbekistan. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what Uzbekistan calls its heritage-listed buildings. It appears to be something like "National Register of Immovable Property Objects of the Material and Cultural Heritage of Uzbekistan". -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename? If so, rename target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Empirical evidence

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There are only two pages in here, which can be linked directly if they're not already. Mason (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merger: empiricism is a narrower concept than empirical evidence: empiricism holds that true knowledge or justification comes only (or primarily) from empirical evidence. Empirical evidence per se makes no claim about its importance, whether it's primary or secondary in knowledge construction. fgnievinski (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Empiricism for completeness, but further participation from others to form consensus would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diplomats of former countries

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I was inspired by a comment on @Johnpacklambert:'s page. I want us to consider renaming this category Diplomats by former country. It fits with the rest of the People by former country tree. Mason (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:26, 9 September 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, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct games

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Is it possible for a game to be defunct without relying on the Internet in some way? I think this is an unnecessary parent category since there's nothing that wouldn't fit into the subcategory. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm It's complicated. Did you look at the entries there? It had some entries added that belong in the Category:Inactive online games‎ and I moved them there, so I assume you clicked on these and did not notice that the category is intended for games that mix physical and online components, but cannot be classified as online games. For example, there were board games like Golem Arcana or children games like Xtractaurs that have physical presence as well as online component that became defunct; as well as many defunct CCGs (those probably need their own category and populating it) like Sword Girls. I've pruned the category to those three entries, although I expect there are more such products to be added. Anyway, the point of this category is to list defunct (inactive) games that are not only online, but physical. You cannot classify Golem Arcana, Xtractaurs or Sword Girls as 'online games', as you played them in the real world; the first two had an online component, but defunct CCGs don't (and they need a separate category, to be honest). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the game depends on online to function, then that would make it an "online game", right? Even if it has a physical component, that would be useless without the computerized online part. Digital CCG's are also basically video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm Not when the game has significant physical components, such as miniatures. Golem Arcana can be played with paper rules, IIRC. Anyway, I've created a new subcategory for Category:Discontinued collectible card games so now this is also valid as a parent category unifying such games with online ones and the weird hybrid ones like Golem Arcna and Xtractaurs. @BOZ in case they have some other games to add here, or comments. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:08, 11 September 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, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Islam and slavery

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: purge all content that is region-based or language-based rather than religion-based. For comparison, the article Slavery in the United States is not in Category:Christianity and slavery either. Possibly rename to Category:Islamic views on slavery and do the same for other religions. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Purge but not rename. I think the way it is works well. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omnis Scientia: "the way it is" will not continue if it is purged per the nominator's proposal. – Fayenatic London 12:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london, you make a fair point. I'm definitely open to more suggestions on the matter. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that religions "been historically dominant in the society of those regions" is a good argument. This way of reasoning would imply that every social history article should be put in a religion category too, I do not think that would be a good idea. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of different ideas... further input would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Daye

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains one entry, and Daye is in Huangshi LibStar (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


September 16

[edit]

Category:Executed Ming dynasty people

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Seems duplicative.
Hi! I've never done this before! Any mistakes are my own.
There might be more of these for other periods. Category:People executed by the Ming dynasty seems better... treed? like in the category tree? Although the two are not congruent, since this is a child of Category:Executed Chinese people by period and the other one isn't, and this one is specifically for Chinese people and the other one isn't. Still seems like one category too many for essentially the same concept. Folly Mox (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The additional categories have not been tagged for a full week; relisting. If there are no further comments this should be all set for merging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Virat Kohli

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Not needed, as there are only a few articles directly about Kohli, and not enough to warrant a category. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep; seems okay to me ATM and is the average size of most epon categories (and I think it will undoubted expand in the future). Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 5 things in that category, Career of Virat Kohli is a spinoff of Virat Kohli that doesn't look to have had consensus to be created, Super V is is an Indian animated television series loosely based on Virat Kohli, so is only tangentially relevant to Kohli, and {{Virat Kohli series}} is up for deletion. As such, I see 2-3 sensible articles in this category only, which is not enough. For reference, Category:Sachin Tendulkar has 11. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:26, 13 September 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) 22:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Bechuanaland Protectorate

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, two redundant category layers with two subcategories in total. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of the Ashanti Empire

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, duplicate of Category:Military of the Ashanti Empire. I would not object to renaming the latter to Category:Military history of the Ashanti Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, category serves no purpose. AusLondonder (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of the Republic of Artsakh

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename per main article History of Nagorno-Karabakh and because many articles in the category are about the period before the Republic of Artsakh was established. After this rename Category:Republic of Artsakh should become a subcategory instead of a parent category. By all means keep a redirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:André Previn

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: With all related subcats in the "works by" category scheme, this eponymous parent is unnecessary. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Years

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I think it would worth moving the relevant sub-categories, for individual years, into Category:Years BC and Category:Years AD. What do others think? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shooting people

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Newly created category that duplicates an existing category, and is extremely liable to being misunderstood and misused. These were created as parents for a new Category:Shooting coaches hierarchy, but the problem is that the name is highly ambiguous -- it isn't clearly communicating the distinction between the intended "people involved in sport shooting" and unintended uses like "people who shot other people" or "people who were shot" or "people who committed mass shootings" that wouldn't belong in the same place as sport shooters.
So since we already have Category:Sport shooters for people involved in sport shooting, and the coaches category has already been added to it, we don't need this to coexist alongside it. Bearcat (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced comment

[edit]

I am also of the opinion to rename or remove this category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attorney001 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Attorney001: please move your comment to the right section. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I cannot determine what section this comment was intended for, and even perusing OP's edit history didn't shed any light — however, as it was simply sitting at the top of the page as a standalone comment, it was becoming a "comment" on every new nomination that got added above it, forcing every new nomination to have to be edited to move it again. Accordingly, I've given it a headline to stop that from happening, but it should still be moved if anybody can figure out where it belongs. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Guararé

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Skiers from Shenyang

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Contains no entries. LibStar (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Kangping County

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry in this category. LibStar (talk) 06:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Faku County

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry in this category. LibStar (talk) 06:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American expatriate soccer players in Turkey

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per multiple discussions, triple-intersection soccer categories are not to be used. See: [11] . BlameRuiner (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; this is part of a very large category tree of expatriate sportspeople. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dumbest Wikipedians

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:USERCAT for lacking any discernible collaborative function. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand why, since this is under the subcategory of Wikipedians, and also has the humor template box. The userbox on the page was from an editable userbox template, so it can't really be deleted. It's a humorous user category that users can add to their page, and I don't see a problem with it. From Rushpedia, the free stupid goofball (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animated television series about hippopotamuses

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Better title, as there is only one extant Wikipedia article about a live action television series about hippopotamuses, Potamus Park. FilmandTVFan50 (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older discussions

[edit]

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

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