Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
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 13:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 164 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]

Current discussions

[edit]
Shortcut

July 27

[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit]

Category:Members of the Fourth Aliyah

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: disperse, period of 1924-1929 is arbitrary and we have diffused these migrants already by country of origin. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Marco. That’s not going to happen. This is a category specific to the period of the Fourth Aliyah, which was 5 years. We do not want to merge it into a 20 year period of immigration. Dag21902190 (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are not arbitrary periods, you are flexing your ignorance of Israeli history.
    Furthermore, believe it or not, definition of a “member” is “one of the individuals of a group”. The group of individuals who migrated to the Land of Israel during each Aliyah was a “member” of that respective Aliyah. They have been referred to as members of their respective Aliyot since the founding of the state.
    if you want to change the word “member” for “migrant”, you will have to figure out how to change that on each person’s page. But your statement that “member” only refers to the “member of an organization”, is not true. It is your perspective of the word, but not reality.
    I will note that the time you have dedicated to coming after these unique categories, and attempting to disperse them into the ether, piques my interest. You have spent hours attacking Israeli categories and pages, wasting time that could have been used being productive.
    We will not be doing anything to the categories, as that would be denying the reality of each unique Aliyah.
    I’m starting to have serious questions about the moderators of this platform. Everything Israel-related gets attacked non-stop (in an organized fashion), by people like you, who don’t even know what the Aliyot were! Making claims that each Aliyah is an arbitrary time-period is a blatant lie, and your privileges should be investigated. This is bizarre. Dag21902190 (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, I find it absolutely fascinating that you nominated the first five Aliyot for dispersal, but left out the Aliyah Bet category. Is it because Aliyah Bet was illegal immigration, and doesn’t make the Jews look good? So you wanted to disperse one through five, and keep just the illegal immigration?
    This entire nomination should be ignored, and the bias you’ve shown by nominating it should come back and bite you. Dag21902190 (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1st. Category:Aliyah Bet does not contain immigrants, it is a topic category. So that is something completely different. 2nd. Every of these Aliyahs is not a single group, they concern a process of several years with many separate groups and individuals. Group membership is therefore completely inapplicable here. 3rd. Please stop with personal attacks. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I’m not sure what you don’t understand, and the reason you keep doubling down on a subject you know nothing about is beyond me. Each Aliyah had its own unique movement. The facilitators of those Aliyot knew that they were facilitating the first, second, third, fourth, fifth Aliyah, and then Aliyah Bet. These categories organize the early Zionist immigrants to the land of Israel by the specific Aliyah movements that facilitated their immigration. To deny the benefits of these categories, and continue to gaslight me, is just a disingenuous tactic. I frankly consider the mass nominations of my categories for” deletion” and “merging” as vandalism, and an overreach of your privileges. You are not a victim here, you are the attacker. Dag21902190 (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only now I notice that you have created Category:Members of Aliyah Bet too. I will nominate this category as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Liz: not by nominator, but by creator of these categories. They have manually moved the articles from "Members" to "Immigrants". That is a waste of effort because the move could have done by a bot if there was consensus for it. I have updated the proposal accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You should be investigated by Wikipedia for overreach of your editing privileges. You are stalking my page, attempting to merge all of my work into broader categories that don’t differentiate between Aliyot, (which is the entire point of these categories). This is the 12th category of mine that you have vandalized with some sort of banner, and for no good reason other than it relates to Israel. You didn’t like the word “member”, so I changed it to ”immigrant”. Now you’re making a blatantly false claim that each Aliyah is an arbitrary time period. It doesn’t matter to you if you revise history, as long as you prevent a compartmentalized gold-mine of information, like these categories, from existing. You are working hard to prevent any sort of organization that makes it easy to research the early history of Israel. Dag21902190 (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, Marcocapelle, I saw the comment they inserted in your nomination and thought they were the nominator. What is going to happen with all of these "Member" categories that are now empty? Will they be turned into redirects if this proposal goes through? Liz Read! Talk! 20:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see a convincing argument to disperse. Marco points out 5 year periods are arbitrary, but so are centuries. If, as Dag states, there exists a mode of reference that divides the immigrants into 5 periods, and someone may reasonably be taking advantage of that division to differentiate between 2 immigrants from different periods, I don't see any reason to disperse. If Dag just invented this division himself I would agree, but my impression is that this isn't the case. JoeJShmo💌 23:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC) not extended confirmed HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I'm not confident they can be dismissed as arbitrary periods - insofar that distinct push and pull factors during the different periods makes each wave have its own characteristics - but even if arbitrary periods of early immigration, they are well recognised as distinct periods (at least within Jewish scholarship). Culturally, also, the Israeli concept of "returning home" as part of an Aliyah is distinct from immigration. For these reasons, the people who were part of such migration would most likely identify it with the X Aliyah name, not as anything else. So as long as there is a good source saying that an individual moving to (insert era) Palestine did so as part of an Aliyah, I believe it is a valid identifying category. My one is concern, though, that people who may have migrated and aren’t identified as part of an Aliyah may be added to these categories based on timespan alone; manual sorting could be required which (I know from experience) is exhaustive and nigh-impossible. For simplicity and not being technically untrue, I wouldn’t staunchly object to the merge proposals as laid out. Kingsif (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kaguya-hime

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: All articles in the category are adaptations. Also the category title should use the current title of the main article. Mika1h (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hijacked journals

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. Proposal: listify, where it could be better sourced. Currently this content is not discussed in the eponym article, Hijacked journal, nor in most member artciles, e.g., Sylwan. fgnievinski (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of these are reasons for deletion. If it's not discussed in each article, it should be. That individuals are not discussed in the main eponimous article is irrelevant, because they shouldn't be. We mention the first known case, Archive des Sciences as an example, but there's no reason to mention the others. WP:NONDEF also does not apply because journals do not control if they are hijacked or not, but it's very much an important thing to know about a journal. And if you want to have a list, have a list, but that does not make the category irrelevant or useless. Also an important defense for WP:CITEWATCH. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lots of things can be a "important thing to know" (for whom?) but that does not put WP:NONDEF aside. No objection to listification if someone volunteers for that. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    for whom? For the reader. If you stumble upon a citation to e.g. Sylwan, it's important to know that Sylwan was hijacked, and that you may not be looking at the real Sylwan but the fake one. Also, 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.
  • We have multiple reliable sources describing these journals as hijacked
  • if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead section of an article (determined without regard to whether it is mentioned in the lead), it is probably not defining;
  • If it's not mentioned in the lead, it should be.
  • if the characteristic falls within any of the forms of overcategorization mentioned on this page, it is probably not defining.
  • It doesn't fall into any of them.
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which sources define them as "a hijacked journal"? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Beall's list, Retraction Watch, ScholarlyOA (before it was itself hijacked), Walailak Journal, Nature, etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are sources about the topic of hijacking. The question is about sources about the subjects in the category. Please read WP:NONDEF carefully. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Every one of those sources identify specific journals being hijacked, and how they were hijacked. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're missing the gist of NONDEF, so I'll quote:
      A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place.
      It goes on to say:
      • if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead section of an article (determined without regard to whether it is mentioned in the lead), it is probably not defining;
      No Wikipedia article about a hijacked journal start (or should start) saying "Journal X is a hijacked journal". They just happen to be a victim of a scam. Granted, it's nice to know, but it needs to be sourced; a list would be the best place to cite sources, which is not technically possible in a mere category membership. fgnievinski (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No Wikipedia article about a hijacked journal start (or should start) saying "Journal X is a hijacked journal". No, but the lead could (and I would argue, should) end with "The journal was hijacked by <organization>, with a fake website at <fakeurldomain>, and the legitimate site hosted at <realurldomain>".[source]" This is absolutely critical information because otherwise someone looking for e.g. Wulfenia could well end up checking the scam version rather than the legit version. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and listify per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've added the list from the category to the article Journal hijacking. Regardless of result, the list is there. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a partial list and does not belong in the article, nor does it negate the purpose of the category. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NBC LX Home affiliates

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: No longer available OTA but still streaming; these stations have/will start airing a new diginet, NBC American Crimes (no article yet) Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Acquired citizenship

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per previous discussions on "Naturalized citizens". Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've tagged Category:Change of nationality.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pending the DRV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baltic Germans

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Three related categories:

I am not sure which way to merge, but current situation makes a mess Estopedist1 (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what I think should happen is it should be merged into "Category:Baltic-German people", than the page should be split into a new catigory called "Category:Lists of Baltic-German German people". the "Category:Baltic-German culture" should be made a subcategory of Baltic-German people. Zyxrq (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Farmers who died by suicide in the United States

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article and a category with two films. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Models from London by borough

[edit]
merging categories
Nominator's rationale: Merge/Delete per WP:OCLOCATION Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:First women admitted to degrees at Oxford

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: While notable interesting, I'd say this is trivial. Perhaps Listify. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious leaders from the Roman Kingdom

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory each. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early religion by century

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer for this early period, the categories only contain a people subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dionysus in mythology

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Dionysus is a mythological character and so most of the content related to him is related to mythology, but I can understand the point of diffusing all the miscellaneous articles relating to his mythology. The "X in mythology" category name is better used for depictions of real things and concepts in mythology, such as Category:Animals in mythology. The proposed name is based on Category:Mythology of Heracles. MClay1 (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of the Khwarazmian Empire

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bogs, fens and marshes in mythology

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: More encompassing and simpler name. Bogs, fens and marshes are apparently three of the four main types of wetlands, with swamps being the other, and I can't see why that should be excluded. Mythology is a subcategory of folklore. This is currently a small category, but I can see it being expanded, as wetlands are often the subject of folklore. MClay1 (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Total agreement with nom. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dutch people of the Eighty Years' War (Spanish Empire)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: From the category description this is supposed to be for Dutch people who served the Spanish Empire during the Eight Years War. The current name doesn't convey that's the relationship.

I don't have a good rename suggestion, but I think the current version is confusing. Mason (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does Marcocapelle's suggestion work?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Racially motivated violence against Europeans

[edit]
  • Propose renaming:
Category:Racially motivated violence against white Europeans to Category:Racially motivated violence against white people in Europe
Category:Racially motivated violence against black Europeans to Category:Racially motivated violence against black people in Europe
Nominator's rationale: The first of these categories formerly included violence against white colonialists in Asia or the Americas, which isn't really comparable to anti-white attacks in Europe. I felt that (following the example of Category:Racially motivated violence against white people in Africa that it was more appropriate to subcategorize by location of the attacks, rather than by the origin of the victims.
In addition, these categories already seems to be subcategories of Category:Racially motivated violence in Europe, strengthening the case that they ought to be subcategories by location. GCarty (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support in spirit, but instead of white people/black people. It should be Category:Racially motivated violence in CONTINENT against people of African descent to make it clearer that the location and descent are easier to distinguish. Mason (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Racially motivated violence against white people in Africa

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Most of these articles are about anti-colonial or anti-settler violence. They cannot and should not be conflated with racially motivated violence in other contexts. User:Namiba 16:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the category does not apply.--User:Namiba 12:07, 23 July 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) 03:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Armenian buildings in Azerbaijan

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NPOV, this resembles Category:Buildings and structures in the Republic of Artsakh that was just deleted. Note that three articles are in Category:Armenian Apostolic churches in Azerbaijan which is not a problematic category because it refers to denomination rather than to country/nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see support for a rename if kept, but no consensus on whether it should be kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Games by genre

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The categories for non-electronic games only consider "genres" as games by a certain topic and not by their mechanics or structure, unlike the video games by genre category. Perhaps we could rename all these categories to be analogous with the video game genres category. But we might need to rename "Games by type" to "Games by genre" in turn. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:11, 19 July 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) 03:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Social casual games

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with Main Article's subject. The long-lasting "casual games" category may actually need to be discussed. It is a "genre" that overlaps with many other categories but more importantly calling certain video games "casual" can be opinionated. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mythology of Perseus

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per the naming of other eponymous categories, such as Category:Heracles and Category:Jason. MClay1 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Greek mythological characters by location

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: User:Markx121993 appears to have tried to manually rename the category (that he created three years ago) by creating the new name and then manually moving all the contents. The old category then got nominated for speedy deletion for being empty, which I stopped by turning it into a redirect. I propose deleting the target and then doing a proper move so as not to lose the old category's page history. MClay1 (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Participant in the Council of Chalcedon

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I think these should be plural, but I'd like to get someone's opinion who is familiar with these councils Mason (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
support pluralizing - no reason for them to be singular (not a topic i edit around, but a hobby interest of mine). ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
support These were supposedly church councils with hundreds of participants. No need for singular in the title. Dimadick (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
support As the creator of these cats, I support this renaming, it feels more natural. AgisdeSparte (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Togolese women company founders

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There are not enough people in this tree to justify diffusion. Mason (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Togolese businesspeople by industry

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layers Mason (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
neutral: I don't know what the thinking is about these cats, so I'm staying neutral and let the community vote on that, but note that I created those cats looking at the cats avalaible for Westerners doing the same job as the page I just created then, which was Kavsokl Batoka at the time, I believe. Here it was probably Coco Channel that was taken as an example by myself. Maybe it's a mistake, but at least it shows that the same type of cats exist for Western figures/countries. AgisdeSparte (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crime in Togo by type

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There are numerous redundant category layers for a single page Agence nationale des renseignements (Togo) Mason (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Social movements in Togo

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer Mason (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities in Kloto (prefecture)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I think we should rename and reparent this category because there's no Kloto Prefecture category. Mason (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oppose: We can create the category separately ; I just didn't place it in the required pages, but just in my creations, for example, Agomé-Yoh or Missahoé could be in Category:Cities in Kloto (prefecture), whilst Kamalo Falls or Agomé people could be in the larger category of Category:Kloto Prefecture. AgisdeSparte (talk) 07:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated places in Togo by type

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This is a redundant category layer. Mason (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]



July 26

[edit]

Category:Indonesian feminist writers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This category only has one person it in, which isn't helpful for navigation. I urge the category creator to only create categories that can be populated. Mason (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turn-based video games

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I recently removed the only article that was in this category (NOT the subcategories) "Farlanders" and to be honest, gameplay that is turn-based (progressing in turns) is not very defining. We didn't even include "Digital tabletop games in this category for that matter, but there are so many Chess simulators, Turn-based puzzles like Sokoban, Rogue, heck, even many point-and-click adventure games... It's too plain and basic to be defining, I guess. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IMO, it's defining for the video games within. Journalists commonly use "turn-based" without specifying a genre to describe gameplay systems, such as here and here, which was my basis for creating it, so I fail to see how it's not defining. Obviously though, if other people disagree I am fine with it getting deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Businesspeople in real estate vs. real estate businesspeople

[edit]

Option A

OR Option B

Nominator's rationale: Significant inconsistency problem in Category:Businesspeople in real estate by nationality, with about half of the subcategories using "Demonym real estate businesspeople" and the other half using "Demonym businesspeople in real estate". Obviously these should all be named the same way; given that the parent category is Category:Businesspeople in real estate rather than Category:Real estate businesspeople, it should probably be Option A, although I'm proposing both options for discussion to prevent this landing no-consensus if there are people who feel strongly that it should be the other way. (Nearly all aunts and uncles in the Category:Businesspeople by industry grandparent are in the "businesspeople in industry" format rather than the "industry businesspeople" format, for the record.) Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Painters by theme

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Johnbod suggested at a previous CFD that this one should also be renamed from "theme", perhaps to "Category:Painters by type of subject". Alternatively, Category:Painters by genre would match the linked category on Commons, and fit within Category:Artists by genre. – Fayenatic London 19:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either would be a big improvement - or "Category:Painters by subject" if that is preferred. I rather demur at using "genre" here, because the word is unfortunately ambiguous as it relates to art - genre painting is one particular genre/type of subject, whereas here we are covering a wide range of other genres. But maybe that horse has bolted. For those just joining, in art and art history, "death" and "love" are themes, the Lamentation of Christ is a subject (which has themes as well). Religious painting, or say altarpiece, is a type of subject, hence my suggesting that. Johnbod (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American farmers of Japanese descent

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:OCEGRS. Manually merge to appropriate categories in Category:American farmers. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Volunteer security group In Nigeria

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Badly-named (it would need to be pluralized as groups and have the I in "in" lowercased if it's to exist at all) category newly created to hold just one thing. A renamed version would be fine if there were five things to file here, but is not needed for just one, so the base "Law enforcement" category is all that's needed at this time. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Commercial Bank CEOs in Nigeria

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization at a bad name that doesn't comply with naming conventions for categories. We don't have any other categories that group banking executives separately from other-type-of-company executives -- i.e. no Category:Bank executives or Category:Banking executives tree exists at all -- but Nigeria doesn't have any special need to categorize banking executives separately from other business executives if no other country has that, and even if there were a valid reason to keep this it would have to be renamed for conformity with proper naming conventions anyway. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gold graduation stoles

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category for university and college honor societies on a non-defining characteristic. Honor societies are not defined by the colour of the finery that they present to their graduates. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On first blush I agree with your sentiment @Bearcat, however upon lengthy research, stoles are a central part of the reason people join honor societies, and gold stoles are a common thread and defining feature of many honor societies in particular. This is furthered by the idea of one honor society suing another for using gold stoles. I believe it's a meaningful category for the academic space, and a way students and schools do categorize societies. I would be open renaming as the wiki community sees fit. WikiObjectivity (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nepalese martyrs

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, overlapping categories, "democracy activist" is more NPOV than "martyr". Marcocapelle (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Martyrs are not the same as democracy activists. "Martyr" is a technical term here, and a posthumous award of sorts; the government officially designates certain people as martyrs after deliberation. So, NPOV is not an issue. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sport in Norwood, Massachusetts

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: "Sport in X" category for a small town without enough noteworthy sporting events to need one. As always, every town that exists does not automatically get one of these the moment one sporting event with an article has been held there -- and while there is one other thing in the Norwood parent category that could be refiled here, there would need to be at least five sporting events with articles to file in here before a dedicated "Sports in Norwood" category was actually needed, and for just two events we only need the state-level sports category and Norwood's eponymous base category rather than an intersected crosscategory. And even if this were to be kept, it would have to be renamed to Sports, because there's an WP:ENGVAR difference between US and UK English here. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator's rationale. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Former states and territories of Thuringia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with one or two history articles and a people subcategory each. I have purged articles about current populated places in Thuringia, as we have discussed multiple times that articles about current places do not belong in history categories. The main articles are already in the tree of Category:Former states and territories of Thuringia, the subcategories are already in Category:People from former German states in Thuringia so a merge is not needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:First Nations

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: With the increasing use of "First Nations" as a synonym or replacement for "aboriginal" or "indigenous" in Australia, this category is starting to drift into ambiguous territory, and I've already had to clean it up at least once for the misfiling of several Australia-related topics. So we should probably now rename this to be more Canada-specific, and repurpose the plain "First Nations" as either a container for that and Australian indigenous categories, or a disambiguation category (or just a preemptive categoryredirect to the general Category:Indigenous peoples, since such usage may expand again in the future.) Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American citrus farmers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:NARROWCAT. Create new category for American-specific citrus farmers and add that to Category:American orchardists and Category:Citrus farmers. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films directed by Chao Deng

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The main article for this category is Deng Chao, where Deng is the subject's family name. However it is not an eponymous category so not eligible for a speedy rename (correct me if I'm wrong on this point) Vegantics (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philippine anime-influenced Western animated television series

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category, two previous entries failed CATDEF - nothing 'Western' soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Thai anime-influenced Western animated television series

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Thai anime-influenced Western animated television series. What? Western animated television series, from Thailand and influenced by anime? Well, the two entries didn't mention Western whatsoever so it's an empty category. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Games about extraterrestrial life

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Very redundant, unhelpful, and just pointless. firstly, we already have a separate category for video games, in which this category used to also contain video games, until I moved ALL the video games in the category, to its only subcategory "Video games about extraterrestrial life" which I have also removed from this category. So either we delete this category or just merge with "Extralif. in pop. culture". QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British military personnel of the Nine Years' War

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The Nine Years' War lasted from September 27, 1688, to September 20, 1697, which was before Great Britain became a nation. Notablly 17th-century English military personnel is a parent Mason (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


July 25

[edit]

Category:Killzone

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary separation of a video game franchise and its games. This category previously only contained Joris de Man besides its main subject article, but I removed it because while he is a composer of the Killzone video games, he does not fit in, in some ways because he also composed the Horizon soundtrack. I'm pretty sure that is just an excuse for there to be more than 1 article in this category. After this, rename the subcategory to just simply "Killzone." QuantumFoam66 (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Science fiction shooter video games

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category that feels out of place - Not a defining trait for the shooter game genre, especially because science fiction is really just a generic theme for the genre as a whole. Does not even categorize every single video game that is both a science fiction and shooter game. I would have instead split with Sci-fi and Shooter games but that wouldn't work due to multiple subgenres of shooter game, and only a few articles do not have a shooter games category, except for like Halo (franchise) and Gears of War. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Squares and ball games

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary/overcategorization Gjs238 (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Three pages are in this category. This category improves WP readers finding things and is helpful. Perhaps some changes in the category name such as "Squares court and ball games" would be better. Happy to progress with the existing name. Rockycape (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ball games --> Category:Squares and ball games --> Category: Squares

"Squares" from Category: Squares the generic name commonly used. As follows from Wiktionary definition: A sport played by four players where players have to hit a ball into other people's squares, and attempt to make a return hit. This category includes Hopscotch, Foursquare, Handball (schoolyard game) and Russian four square.Rockycape (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ditherpunk video games

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: "Ditherpunk" is still a neogolism, with only a few sources supporting this term (including the developer self describing one of the games in this list), we should be categorizing by such terms Masem (t) 21:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need for upmerging with Category:Monochrome video games. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started the category to distinguish games with a dithering style from other monochromatic graphics. Besides the growing use in sources, there's also a subreddit dedicated to the style.
However, any other rename for the category could be alright too. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Musical theorists of the medieval Islamic world

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Should be "Music theorists"; "Musical theorists" is not a normal term. Aza24 (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Module documentation pages

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per my comments at WP:VPT#Adding documentation subpage to module doc pages, populating this category properly requires a lot of effort both now and every future time a new module is created. Since a similar list can be found via CirrusSearch, the existence of this category is an unnecessary and wasteful drain of resources. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WLH only includes pages that transclude {{Documentation subpage}} directly. Open any doc page in that list and you'll see that the documentation subpage message appears twice. Pppery is wrong. If the category is deleted then finding documentation subpages will become much harder. Nickps (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong about that specific point (now removed), but not my broader point: CirrusSearch or frankly even Special:AllPages/Module: since almost half of all module pages are documentation pages should suffice. And what is the value of finding a list of all module documentation pages anyway? That's never been answered. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding Category:Module documentation pages to your watchlist and letting category changes through the filter would allow you to see every new documentation page in your watchlist. The utility of this feature is explained in MediaWiki_talk:Scribunto-doc-page-header#Category:Module_documentation_pages. Nickps (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And why would one want to see every new documentation page on one's watchlist? This still looks like an overengineered solution in search of a problem, causing unnecessary chaos as a result. On the contrary to what you claim, that discussion shows one person who relies on watching template documentation pages and explicitly does not care about module documentaton pages. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know I watch the category. I can't speak for anyone else. If you ask me though, both of the arguments made for Category:Template documentation pages apply to modules because, while vandalism in module space is rarer, those pages are also less frequently visited, so it can be harder to spot. Removing a tool that would help with this process is a step in the wrong direction. Nickps (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And why would one want to see every new documentation page on one's watchlist? – because one is interested in maintaining module documentation. Keeping it consistent, up-to-date, etc. —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, pages like Module:Category_disambiguation/doc are not listed in the WLH, despite clearly including the template. Nickps (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: populating this category properly requires a lot of effort [...] every future time a new module is created – /doc pages are populated via preload Template:Documentation/preload-module-doc, so it won't be a lot of effort if {{Documentation subpage}} is added to the preload. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Olympic Games in fiction

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Not well defining, some of the entries can be moved to Category:Works about the Olympic Games, but not all of them. I also suspect that most of those entries are already in one of those subcategories. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Egyptian art movements

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: 1-article category Gjs238 (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sportspeople by Canadian province or territory and sport

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: per previous precedents. Moved to full Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Which province or territory? What country? Can a Canadian player play in a Baseball team in the Northern Territory? This creates a problem that the previous naming convention did not have. Gonnym (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any issue or confusion here. Its for categorizing by birth place or place where they grew up, not where they played. Majority of categories are named like this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sportspeople from Japan by prefecture

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: per (many) previous precedents. Moved to full Cfd; split should be at the end and it should by "Foo people by region". Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Which prefecture? What country? Can a Japanese player play in a Baseball team in Bangui (Prefecture)? This creates a problem that the previous naming convention did not have. Gonnym (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any issue or confusion here. Its for categorizing by birth place or place where they grew up, not where they played. Majority of categories like this are named like that. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as potential trainwreck per Canadian nomination above. Grutness...wha? 15:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Essays about biology

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Smaller underpopulated category. I've already added the lone page to Biology books‎ Mason (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early infrastructure

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layers in these early centuries. With few exceptions it only contains a bridges subcategory under Transport infrastructure and a fortifications subcategory directly under Infrastructure. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian pacifist Wikipedians

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Uncategorised film articles

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This doesn't seem to be used by any template as I couldn't find it in an insource search. As a manual placed category this isn't really useful. Gonnym (talk) 07:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jazzland Records (1960) albums

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Not sure why two categories were created, but now releases in two categories belong to the same label. The only other label with a similar name also already has its own category: Category:Jazzland Recordings albums. Solidest (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jazzland seems to be a sublabel of it. Riverside Records discography says it's subsidiary, Discogs says it's companion label. Solidest (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:00, 17 July 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) 01:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the articles from both categories have the same label name in the infobox, which links to the same article (even while it is a different article name), merging seems the best solution indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bengali cinema

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The category should be changed since the main article's name was changed from Cinema of West Bengal to Bengali cinema, India. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:01, 17 July 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) 01:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:12th-century Indian sculptors

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: 3x upmerge for now. Isolated century category that doesn't really help with navigation. Mason (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video game franchises by narrative genre

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: QuantumFoam66 (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is clearly a subcategory of Category:Video games by narrative genre, why would you suggest an unrelated name? AHI-3000 (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages using LPFM station data without facility ID

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: No longer used in {{LPFM station data}} after the cleanup was completed. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hotels in Pattaya

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only has 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


July 24

[edit]

Category:Pages using AM station data without facility ID

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: No longer used by {{AM station data}} after the cleanup was completed. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 22:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages using FM station data without facility ID

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: No longer used by {{FM station data}} now that the cleanup has been completed. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 22:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with Asperger syndrome

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: and also manually merge where needed to categories in Category:People on the autism spectrum. Many of these are already there, I would say. In some cases, I can't find sources which say they were diagnosed with it; in which case purge. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sam & Cat

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains one article. Should also be merged to Category:Victorious. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films produced by Thomas K. Gray

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization: This is a category for films directed by someone who has either never had or no longer has a Wikipedia article about them. It has only one entry for a film from 1993 and a search for additional articles that meet the criteria of this category turned up no results. I would not oppose this category being re-created in the future if Gray produces additional films, but at the present moment this is unhelpful for navigating Wikipedia Vegantics (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cochise County conflict

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:COPSEP, this should be split into a non-people and people category, enabling the people to be places in such categories as Category:19th-century people by conflict, etc. --woodensuperman 12:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American folklore

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:COPSEP, this should be split into a people and non-people category. --woodensuperman 12:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Family of Boris Johnson

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Reverse speedy name change. It was an error on my part; I didn't realize that the original version was the correct form. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, I would say that the name, for now, should be made consistant with all the other categories and then a later Cfd can be opened with an A and B option for categories like this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the principle of discussing the A and B options; would that be an RfC or can CfDs present two possibilities like that? I've found many more categories to add to Category:Families by person (which has been speedily renamed since earlier in this conversation), and the picture now looks very mixed. Ham II (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works about villains

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This topic is really vague in the extreme, almost anything can be called a "villain" by someone or characterized as being "about" a villain if they feature heavily in the plot. It doesn't make sense as a category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Works with villain protagonists. Looking at one of the articles, I think this is supposed to be about works with a villain as the protagonist, such as Soon I Will Be Invincible. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Category:Works featuring villain protagonists, like the video game subcategory, Category:Video games featuring villain protagonists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dobrujan Tatar

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. It only has two articles: Dobrujan Tatar and Dobrujan Tatar alphabet. Everything can be included in the parent Category:Crimean Tatar language, as Dobrujan Tatar is a dialect of it (and the page on the dialect already includes this category). Super Ψ Dro 23:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might sound confusing due to the geographic names but the Crimean Khanate once extended beyond Crimea and its population was semi-nomadic from what I understand. Dobrujan Tatar is a dialect of the Crimean Tatar language, this has been discussed already at Talk:Dobrujan Tatar. Super Ψ Dro 10:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I had not checked ths talk page. From what I understand of the discussion, the merge target should be Category:Kipchak languages. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it has been not. We are not linguist at all. I, as a speaker of this language, disagree with it. The situation of this language is not clear!!!! Maybe you hear "it's a dialect" from somewhere and act with own knowledge, this is not a solution. The language is in discussion by SIL, and they noticed that the language is different than Crimean Tatar. The discussions are in progress. Zolgoyo (talk) 13:27, 7 July 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) 01:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from the Savoyard state

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category Mason (talk) 23:21, 6 July 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) 01:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Technology articles with topics of unclear notability

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Unclear if these are needed as they aren't listed as one of the valid categories in {{Notability}}. Gonnym (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not used by Template:Notability, according to source code. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bombing of the Gaza Strip

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category has a lot of overlap with the parent category. I think a better name would be Category:Israeli airstrikes during the Israel–Hamas war, which more closely mirrors sibling categories like Category:American airstrikes during the Syrian civil war Mason (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:3-honeycombs by order

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Mostly redirects with few unique articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American veterans activists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories Mason (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mason, there are many types of activists beyond just advocating for "rights". With the merge, it is unclear if everyone in the category to be eliminated fits in "rights" advocacy, nor does it allow for more complete capturing of veterans activists in the future. There's also two cat scheme connections here with the current setup. Category:American veterans activists as subcat of Category:American activists and Category:American veterans' rights activists as subset of Category:Veterans' rights activists by nationality. Semper Fi! (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand all that it would be unclear, that is why I am asking. @FieldMarineDo you have any example of an American veterans activist who does not fit into the "rights" advocacy bucket? Please be specific because I don't see how they aren't fully overlapping right now. Mason (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mason, in checking the first three, I do not see the word "rights" mentioned at all. I do see advocacy mentioned. In one case I see suicide prevention, which fits with advocacy not "rights". Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let me rephrase. I'm asking because I am trying to understand how this category is substantively and meaningfully different. It would be extremely helpful for you (as the category creator) to provide concrete examples of why you think these categories are unique. I'm not opposed to reverse merging, however, reverse merging would eventually lead to renaming and reparenting a lot of other sibling categories. Hence, I'm trying to understand if this distinction is fundamentally meaningful. Suicide prevention is useful, but it doesn't really seem from looking at the categories that this group is unique other than they don't seem to have mentioned activism for rights specifically, but still they are advocating for veterans to have a better life. As a counter example, we don't have both a disability activists category and a disability rights activists category. They are highly overlapping because the core element is advocacy on behalf of disabled people. Mason (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the issue raised about the possible disruption to the sibling categories with a merge or reverse merge for the reason I mention above – right now as separate subcats they are aligned with the parent cats. As for the counter example, "We don't have both a disability activists category and a disability rights activists category." I am not aware there's such a thing as a "disability activist", so it is unclear how that could ever be a cat. However, veterans activists do exist. Also of note to this discussion, the "disability rights activist" cat is a subcat of a higher-level activist cat.
Rights has a specific meaning and there are veterans activists who advocate beyond "rights". None of the articles in this category mention veterans rights at all. The veteran suicide issue is a good example because it encompasses a wide range of activists, well beyond advocating for rights. In my opinion, straying away from meanings or taking a loose view invites an improper or unmeaningful cat scheme. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bedouin businesspeople

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Not necessary to subcategorize the target category this way. Also contains only 2 articles. Gjs238 (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete, the articles are already in Category:Egyptian businesspeople and Category:Syrian businesspeople, which should suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per Marco. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't there some benefit to categorising by ethnicity and nationality? Anecdotally, every Bedouin I've ever met would say that they're a Bedouin first and their nationality second. – Joe (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge I will nominate Category:Arab businesspeople shortly because it conflates ethnicity and nationality, like so many similar categories that have been brought to CfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it conflate them or just set up a parallel scheme for ethnicity, i.e. Category:Businesspeople by ethnicity? Do you also object to Category:African-American businesspeople and Category:Jewish businesspeople? – Joe (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Jewish businesspeople is a recreation of a previously deleted category, so it is at least controversial. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      But it exists now. And Nyttend recently declined a CSD nom with this enlightening edit summary: We're no longer in the same situation as before — the recent "keep" for Jews by occupation (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 26) means that there's recent support for categories of this type, and speedy-deleting just this one would be absurd. I don't have a dog in this fight, but wouldn't it make sense to establish a consensus for or against categories by ethnicity, rather than seeking to delete individual ones here and there? – Joe (talk) 11:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain I can list quite a few reasons for this: Bedouins have a distinct cultural, historical, and social identity within the Arab world. Merging their category into a general "Arab businesspeople" category could be seen as diluting the unique aspects of their cultural heritage. A specific category helps represent their unique challenges and contributions which might not be adequately covered. The Bedouin community has a history of nomadic trade and business practices that differ significantly from other Arab groups. A specific category preserves this historical context. Bedouins have distinct social structures and community dynamics that influence their business practices. Specific business strategies, success stories and challenges faced by Bedouin businesspeople can be studied with the help of a dedicated category. For cultural studies research, having a specific category can help in drawing more nuanced conclusions about the Bedouin way of life and their integration into modern economies. Furthermore, Wikipedia claims to be an inclusive platform representing diverse perspectives and communities. This category aligns with the principle of giving minority groups adequate representation. Merging the category marginalizes the Bedouin community within the larger Arab context.--Simxaraba (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of this addresses the small size of the category, and this is just WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several more businessmen that are notable enough to be written about. Just because the category is small at the moment doesn't mean there aren't more. Simxaraba (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge? Delete? Keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge

Gjs238 (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will note that the originally proposed merge target has been deleted following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 7#Category:Arab businesspeople.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:4-polytope stubs

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: A small 26-page stub category on a niche topic. Consider also checking if articles are directly in Category:4-polytopes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reginar Brussels

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination of a category which was discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 16#History of Brussels by period but was never tagged; I have no opinion on whether this should happen or not. Pinging Marcocapelle. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palestinian bedouins

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Effectively redundant. Will require manual addition of parent categories to the target, for it is a downmerge. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Joe's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Joe's newer comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brainwashing theory proponents

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Whatever the difference is supposed to be between these two categories is beyond me. As far as I can tell, both categories are about people notable for writing works promoting the legitimacy of the sociological concept of brainwashing/mind control (which are more or less the same thing). This just seems like a slightly less neutral version of the other category made by a banned sock. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same question: merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean delete, but only mildly. Mason (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't in the other category. I would rather not have to add them to it manually after the fact. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games with expansion packs

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Last year, on May 7, 2023. A similar category "Video games with downloadable content" was deleted, and expansion packs are pretty much the same as downloadable content. In turn, this category is probably non-defining. Expansion packs are as common as DLC, and are essentially the same. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd agree with the nominator - having an expansion pack does not always modify the base game, so it's hard to call it a defining feature. Categories should be defining aspects of the subject, not something tangential. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose because there are several other potentially non defining categories like "Video games with alternate versions" that I would have put under discussion in the same nomination or whatever. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am going to note that nom is QuantumFoam66.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator's objection seems bizarre. They can just make a followup nom. Mason (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Museum collections

[edit]
More nominations
Nominator's rationale: Subcategories of Category:Museum collections for individual museums currently use a mixture of the styles "Collection of [the Foo Museum]" and "Collections of [the Foo Museum]". I propose to standardize to "Collection", singular, as that seems more logical; the article Collection (museum) mostly refers to a museum as having a "collection" as opposed to "collections", plural – although "Very large museums will often have many sub-collections, each with its own criteria for collecting. A natural history museum, for example, will have mammals in a separate collection from insects." Even in those cases, though, it's still idiomatic to refer to the collection of, say, the British Museum – see this Ngram. Ham II (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is indeed correct to use a plural categroy name when a museum has multiple named collections, often each with their own subcategory. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As Andy. Collections in plural (for all but the smallest museums) is correct. Especially for our use, where we regularly have subcategories to more specific collections. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the reasons expressed above. I think it would be better to standardize using "Collections", since it is not uncommon for museums to have multiple collections. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and standardize 'Collections' per Sgconlaw. For example, I often refer to Wikipedia's topic collections and not overall 'collection of articles'. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support I'm very puzzled by these opposes - most from people not known for activity in this area. To "standardize using "Collections", since it is not uncommon for museums to have multiple collections" is just NOT an option, as many museums don't have multiple named options. We can indeed use named subcategories though pretty few museum categories actually do so - one exception is Category:British Library. We normally sub-categorize by type of object, area they are from etc. You will very very rarely hear museum people talk about "our collections" rather than "our collection". If, like me, you work a lot in this area, including categories, it is a complete pain to have to keep experimenting to see which form is used by us. Johnbod (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnbod, that sounds like an argument against the proposal to make everything match. The British Library has many collections, so it should stay at Category:British Library collections (in the plural), and museums that only have one collection should use the singular. Do you really want Category:British Library collections to be renamed to the singular? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, for consistency, which is important here. Alternatively the intermediate Category:British Library collections could just be cut out, and the 15 named collection sub-cats just come off the main BL category. But that will rather mess up parent categories like, in this case Category:Manuscripts by collection. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I intend to look at library collections in another nomination. With museums that could be said to have multiple collections, it's better to subdivide by object type and/or the geographical area where the objects are from, rather than by discrete sub-collection, and for the most part that's what we do. There is the added complication of several museums having multiple locations, and that is something that does show up in categorization. But we don't tend to have the equivalent of Category:Burney Collection and Category:Harleian Collection within Category:British Library collections for museums. Ham II (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, will take Johnbod's word for this when it comes to museum information. I personally use 'collection' when discussing Wikipedia ("Wikipedia's spaceflight collection", etc.) but that's a personal choice. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • support like Johnbod, i'm confused about the opposition here. his argument makes sense to me. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 07:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It would be clearer (and more in-line with usual category naming schemes) to have these categories titled as Category:Items Objects in the collection of Foo Museum. But I'm not sure it's a net benefit with the increased wordiness. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC), 12:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Objects" is the correct term, used by museums themselves. "Items" is actually a good deal less clear and adds nothing. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the correction. I'm not familiar with the exact wording, but you probably get my intent. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Johnbod: what is your opinion about Category:Objects of Foo Museum? It seems to me that most articles are about an object rather than about a collection. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Certainly they mostly are (though again, the British Library has some about actual collections), but I don't really see the need. "Collection of ..." seems very readily comprehensible. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • If we were to go with "Objects" it should be "Objects in the Foo Museum", not "Objects of the Foo Museum", for consistency with subcategories; "Paintings of", "Drawings of" and "Photographs of" would sound like depictions of the buildings.

          I don't think "Objects" is ideal for art collections. "Collection(s)" is more all-encompassing; we just need to pick a side on the question of singular versus plural. It's the categories, rather than the articles, that are about a collection – which is an argument for "Collection" being in the singular in each category name. Ham II (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion on the objects suggestion would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Collection', per Ham. Museums collect and build collections, and then they either display the diverse works and objects collected or store them. Works differ from objects in important ways, although both are included in institutional collections. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For what its worth I'm also a museum professional and frequently talk about the Collections in plural, in a situation where the term refers to all the things in museum institution. I can see a situation where where there is a subcategory of the above naming e..g 'Archaeology collection of...' or 'Natural Sciences collection of...' where the singular makes more sense. But for these broad, high level categories I prefer plural. Personal take. Zakhx150 (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Museums. Ham II (talk) 06:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Came here from aforementioned notification (thank you!). I don't think this is a situation where it can be standardized because the situation of the Met or the British Museum is very different to that of a small museum with one collection. The collections are within the broader collection, yes, but purely singular won't work if there isn't the option for both. Star Mississippi 13:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the response. If one can say "the collections are within the broader collection" then collection in the singular is acceptable, though. The Met's webpage for searching its holdings is titled "The Met Collection" and the British Museum's is titled "Explore the collection". It would seem that purely singular is viable for both larger and smaller institutions, and purely plural works less well for the smaller ones. Ham II (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kingdom Hearts original characters

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Over 100 characters from various animated Disney movies, were removed from "Kingdom Hearts characters" about 1 or 2 years ago, also that category contains only 1 article. Also, we have to add an explanation to that category after the merge, since then it would only be for original characters. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Kingdom Hearts characters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1370 in Brussels

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated single-article categories, not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:1511 in Brussels.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century feminists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There is no need to have an intersection between political orientation and century. Mason (talk) 02:06, 16 July 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) 01:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a defining characteristic of the individuals named. One reason there are so few is that the social cost of being an overall true feminist in the 1800s, and not only those who supported the vote, was substantial. Rarity does not mean it isn't a viable topic, just the opposite. That same rarity makes these individuals even more unique in their approach and support of their fellow women. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is saying rarity is not defining. I don't think having an isolated category is helpful here. How would the keeps feel about an alternative name that doesn't include century? Like Early feminists or premodern feminists? Mason (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just added another entry, this is a defining category. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, but @Randy Kryn, do you have suggestions that could avoid using the term century? The challenge with 19th-century, is that is that there is only 1 century. The norm is to not create 20th or 21st century for activists, so an alternative name would be extremely helpful. Mason (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. '19th-century' seems fine as a historical era-descriptor. The concept of 19th century feminists is interesting and descriptive. 18th century feminists may be a good essential category as well, tracking encyclopedically the "early" progress and social instinct of activist women such as Mary Wollstonecraft. 20th and 21st century would be a very full list, so they could be created or not. But 19th century notables, yes, it works on several levels. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Counts of Geneva

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, the category consists of two very different sets of medieval ruling counts of Geneva, who are already in Category:House of Geneva and for early modern members of the House of Savoy for whom this was merely an empty title. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't believe the above summary to be quite right. Several members of the house of Savoy enjoyed practical control over the county and they are not going to be recorded in 'house of Geneva'. There is also the house of Thoire that controlled the county briefly in the late medieval period who presently lack articles but would be members of the category if they didn't. Moreover even after the city of Geneva slipped from their grasp (they maintained control of other parts of the county such as Annecy) the county remained prominent among their titulary (several of the sons of the dukes of Nemours were called the prince de Genevois until the death of their fathers) and is featured in the leading sentences of many of the articles. sovietblobfish (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree some form of re-allocation needs to happen from Jacques on down. Especially given the county was raised to a duchy by the duke of Savoy in 1564. Perhaps they should be migrated to a category called something like 'Prince de Genevois' or 'Prince of the Genevois'. sovietblobfish (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course members of the house of Savoy enjoyed practical control over the county because it was part of the Savoyard state and the rulers of the latter were the ones enjoying practical control. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      At times yes, however the county (-1564 duchy) was under the authority of the cadet branch Savoie-Nemours for the majority of the 16th century and parts of the 17th century, and they were primarily French princes.
      Irrespective of whether they or the dukes of Savoy enjoyed practical control, this surely challenges the notion that it was an 'empty title' and it is therefore meaningful to keep it. sovietblobfish (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:32, 16 July 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) 01:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Villains in mythology and legend

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: As far as I know, "villain" is usually used in a literary context. We typically use "evil" to describe malevolent gods and there is already such a category called Category:Evil deities, making this redundant and pointless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This category is not restricted to gods or goddesses. This is supposed to be a counterpart to Category:Heroes in mythology and legend, and just as there are plenty of folklore heroes, there are folklore villains too. AHI-3000 (talk) 07:25, 16 July 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) 01:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (oppose), as the old saying goes, not all mythological villains are evil gods but all mythological evil gods are villains. In other words, villains and gods do not necessarily travel in the same boat (Much ado about godding?). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Decades in the Colony of Virginia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant categoey lay Mason (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Implement Gonnym's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is @Gonnym willing to fix the template? Mason (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that isn't an issue. Ping me if this closes with that result. Gonnym (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Gonnym or someone else is willing to fix the template, I'm fine with keeping the category. Mason (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Irish blind musicians

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only nationality category in Category:Blind musicians. Seems like an unnecessary intersection between nationality, musicians, and disability. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will note that item 2 in the proposal is to merge the harpists category into the musicians category, but item 1 is to merge the musicians category elsewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British companies established in 1706

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Template:British companies established in the year only works for companies established after the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707 * Pppery * it has begun... 00:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Biological literature by Janet Frost

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Categories contain two non-notable dissertations that are going to soon be deleted. User who created these has been also indeffed for multiple reasons, including COI and hoax creation. Sgubaldo (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Every deletion area on Wikipedia has its own rules and quirks. You won't find me at WP:TFD! Liz Read! Talk! 00:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


July 23

[edit]

Category:1961 in Sri Lanka

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: empty category duplicate of Category:1961 in Ceylon Robby (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Records of prime ministers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: No such category tree. Gjs238 (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a category.Muaza Husni (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic church buildings in Turkey

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, mostly single-article categories, which is not helpful for navigation. All Roman Catholic churches in Turkey are either from the 19th or 20th century, or in Istanbul or Izmir, or both. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:6th-century soldiers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Isolated category that's not helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People executed by British North America by hanging

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There was no central government of British North America; it was a collection of British colonies. The use of "by" suggests that the individual was hanged by the government of British North America. Changing it to "in" leaves it open which colonial government in BNA was responsible for the hanging. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ISO/IEC 27000-series

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: CfR to match main article title. 'family' is used by ISO. See edit summary. Tule-hog (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


July 22

[edit]

Category:Military personnel of the Middle Ages

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I think we should rename this to be consistent with other Medieval occupations. Notably all the child categories are Medieval FOO military personnel Mason (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional people from the Austro-Hungarian empire

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. I think there's no need to have a category with a single person in it. If not deleted, I think we should rename it to match the parent Category:People from Austria-Hungary Mason (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Alta California people

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Single category member, and not corresponding Category:Alta California people Mason (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1974 disasters in Mozambique

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated category, the next is for the year 2000. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century British biblical scholars

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: isolated underpopulated categories. I don't think that we need to diffused at the intersection of nationality and century Mason (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Untagged categories from the Portuguese Mozambique CfDs

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination of two categories which were discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 13#Years in (Portuguese) Mozambique but were never tagged. I have no opinion on whether this is a good idea or not; pinging @Marcocapelle and Fayenatic london: who participated in that discussion. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 21:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Infobox road transclusions without route marker

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This doesn't seem to be used anymore as I can't find it in actual template or module code. Gonnym (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I don't even remember making this category anymore, or even if I was just trying to fill in a red-category. It looks like something I was creating for the administrators to help them sort out some broken road related templates. Perhaps a soft redirect to Category:Jct template errors might suffice in the event of an increase in the number of routeboxes transclusions without route numbers turns up again. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Protected area articles requiring maintenance

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Not used anymore by Template:Infobox protected area. Gonnym (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles using Infobox medical condition using locally defined parameters

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Doesn't seem to be in use anymore as I can't find it in Template:Infobox medical condition or linked to from anywhere. Gonnym (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's automatically added through WikidataIB when a local parameter is set, see e.g., Category:Articles using Infobox artwork/wikidata using locally defined parameters for a more populated category. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages using Infobox boxer (amateur) with conflicting parameters

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Not used as Category:Pages using infobox boxer (amateur) with conflicting parameters (lowercase i) is used. Gonnym (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I think Gonnym may be misinterpreting the template code. Because |template_name=Infobox boxer (amateur) (capitalized) is passed to {{Infobox person}}, Category:Pages using Infobox boxer (amateur) with conflicting parameters (capitalized) is used and Category:Pages using infobox boxer (amateur) with conflicting parameters (lower case) is unused. I would delete the latter. Alternatively, we could change the template code, but then we'll need to create Category:Pages using infobox boxer (amateur) with unknown parameters. Either is choice is fine with me. — hike395 (talk) 05:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for clearing that up. I don't care which is used, but it was confusing seeing these two with the difference being the I. Gonnym (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages using infobox Australian place with non-lga type and suppressed location map

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per author request. ✗plicit 23:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Doesn't seem to be in use anymore at Template:Infobox Australian place. Gonnym (talk) 16:43, 22 July 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:Glacier articles requiring maintenance

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Unclear where this was used as it isn't linked to from anywhere. Gonnym (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian Statistical Geography Standard 2016 ID template with no id set

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Does not seem to be added by Template:Census 2016 AUS as I couldn't find it in code or docs. Gonnym (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian Statistical Geography Standard 2011 ID template with no id set

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Does not seem to be added by Template:Census 2011 AUS as I couldn't find it in code or docs. Gonnym (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Second ladies and gentlemen of the United States

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: 1) Rename to match categories in Category:Spouses of United States state governors and article too. 2) Merge Category:Second gentlemen of the United States with Category:Second ladies of the United States AFTER it has been renamed. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television episodes written by Michael Ferris

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Michael Ferris is a disambiguation page. Gonnym (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per C2B. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of the foreign relations of Estonia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Due to the article Ukraine Compact, user:Stickhandler has massively created one-member cats. To be upmerged to e.g. "Category:Foreign relations of Foo country" Estopedist1 (talk) 06:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Affected are:

--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Central Greece

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcocapelle, Nederlandse Leeuw, do you have a compromise here? — Qwerfjkltalk 19:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure Marcocapelle understood what I was proposing, and why. I was hoping for others to weigh in, but nobody else seems to care. NLeeuw (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nederlandse Leeuw: the proposal is to create a category for the former definition of Central Greece, next to a category of the current definition of Central Greece. I think that this is just confusing. We do not usually split geography categories by former borders. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless the category for the former definition of Central Greece contains purely historical contents, to which the modern definition would not apply. NLeeuw (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clear old CfD log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional robbers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There is very little to distinguish thieves from robbers, both of which have the exact same connotation with one being a subgroup of the other. Given the huge overlap, given that many fictional thieves also engage in robbery, this newly created category should be merged back as overcategorization. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scottish noblewomen

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I think we should rename and purge this category to mirror British women by rank and English women by rank Mason (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Artists from New Spain

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non of the people in here are described as being New Spanish. I think that this kind of category could work as a parent/container category, but I don't see how it's helpful to bundle such disparate people together Mason (talk) 18:13, 14 July 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) 01:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American high school teachers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Do we really need to diffuse by level of educator? Do we have middle school, elementary school? This just doesn't need to be very defining Mason (talk) 19:46, 14 July 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) 01:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Namiba. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Land agents

[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) 22:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Newly created category containing 1 eponymous article and 1 "land agent" Gjs238 (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw proposal after content addition. Many thanks to LeapTorchGear! Gjs238 (talk) 21:30, 22 July 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:Los Angeles Knight Riders

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Newly created category containing 1 article. Gjs238 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per C2F. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's no article attached in that category Wowlastic10 (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comparative theology

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Newly created category containing 1 article. Gjs238 (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1805 in Germany

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge similar to all years up to 1804. The Holy Roman Empire was disestablished in 1806. It is a bit confusing because the Austrian Empire was established two years earlier, in 1804. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:1805 establishments in Germany.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages using new version of Template EstcatCountry

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: No longer necessary: all pages use the new version of {{EstcatCountry}}. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Category:Pages using old version of Template EstcatCountry was speedy deleted per G8 in September 2023. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA University and College Divisions, 1956 to 1961

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 27#1956 NCAA College Division football season, research determined that the NCAA University Division and NCAA College Division were not applied to football until 1962. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duchy of Lucca year categories

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Massive tree for two articles (Lucca railway station and Luccan lira) which is unhelpful for navigation. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The Duchy of Lucca was a small Italian state that existed from 1815 to 1847. Both articles are in other appropriate establishment and Lucca-related subcategories than the ones included here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


July 21

[edit]

Category:Lists of tennis commentators

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article in the category, upmerge to the parent category. Let'srun (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German Confederation

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename, there was no unified German country until 1871. The German Confederation (1815-1866) was a loose connection of independent states which also included Austria and Bohemia. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is follow-up on this earlier discussion, @PearlyGigs and Fayenatic london: pinging contributors to this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish American slave owners

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge per previous precedent here Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Marcocapelle and @Smasongarrison from previous Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison, there were a few which weren't but I've added them to the appropriate subcats of Category:American Jews. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Mason (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish businesspeople

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: My speedy delete nomination was declined [1] (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_8) because there have been more recent mixed opinions of the intersection of being Jewish and several occupations (e.g., Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_14#Category:Jewish_merchants; Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_August_29#Category:Jewish_sportspeople; link:for a search of CFDS with the word Jewish, sorted by most recent);Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_12#Category:Jewish_British_slave_owners). I think that this category is problematic under WP:EGRS given that it is primarily based on a stereotype rather than a defining intersection. I recall that several business-related child categories have been deleted over the same concern. (I think that Jewish Bankers is an exception because of the historical context of banking in Europe being a non-Christian occupation because of usury) Mason (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omnis Scientia, do you remember with business occupations were recently deleted? (My brain is telling me that you were in those conversations.)Mason (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison, no I wasn't but I would say this one should be deleted. A lot of Jewish businesspeople, historically speaking, so WP:EGRS applies. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! (Lol, my bad. I should clearly stop listening to my brain 🤣 for advice!) Mason (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fire temples

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, 1 and 2 members respectively. Both were created by an editor who was subsequently blocked for WP:SOCKING. – Fayenatic London 14:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Korean women independence activists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I'm the creator of the category now on an IP. I originally created the cat under the target name, but it was speedy renamed a while back. I think the new name is either incorrect or confusingly worded. My original scope for the category was "Women who advocated for Korea's independence", not "Korean women who advocated for independence". There were several non-Korean women in the category at time of renaming. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison Courtesy tagging the prev renamer; please lmk if my interpretation of the new name is incorrect 104.232.119.107 (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename and Propose splitting to Korean women independence activists and Women activists for Korean independence. Clearly, the original name was confusing as it could be interpretated as either. Mason (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support this proposal. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For foreign activists, why would we make a distinction by gender? Marcocapelle (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Marco makes a good point. I am not familiar with the literature/history of women's activism on this issue. IP, can you point to literature on this subject? Either way, I think that "Activists for Korean independence" is clearer.Mason (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a newbie to category naming discussions, so not sure what kind of info is helpful. My quick hand count on South Korea's database of activists who received awards has 7 female non-Korean activists for Korean independence, although I know of maybe 1-2 others who haven't received awards and the number keeps expanding. For foreign activists for Korean independence of any gender, there are around 70-90ish commonly recognized I think. I'd prefer a single category for women activists for Korean independence of any nationality and not a split.
    Also, I'm not sure how much WP:COMMONNAME is typically weighed for categories. "Activists for Korean independence" is a less common wording than "Korean independence activist" [2], although it is possibly clearer. SK has an "independence activist of the month" program [3]. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles of the Venetian–Genoese wars

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(first war) Category:War of Saint Sabas‎ (1 C, 10 P)
(second war) Category:War of Curzola‎ (1 C, 3 P)
(fourth war) (Category:War of Chioggia‎ (1 C, 3 P)
If we upmerge as proposed, then we'll have these battles grouped both in Category:Venetian–Genoese wars and in these 3 subcategories. Per WP:DIFFUSE, that's not very practical. Would it be worth upmerging those subcategories as well to avoid duplication? Aside from the battles and the main articles of the 1st, 2nd and 4th war, the only other contents are "People of the Xth war" subcategories, which we've also already covered in Category:People of the Venetian–Genoese wars. In short, there's a lot of duplication going on here. I'm not sure which solution I would find most elegant, but I'm considering this alt proposal:
Might this work better than the proposal of nom? NLeeuw (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of Great Britain by period

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, presumably the consequence of the deletion of Category:History of Great Britain in this earlier discussion is that its subcategories should also be deleted. I will follow up with decades and years later.
@Omnis Scientia, Ham II, Johnbod, Nederlandse Leeuw, and PearlyGigs: pinging participants to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with Category:History of Great Britain was the scope (the period 1707–1800, which made it indistinguishable from the scope of Category:Kingdom of Great Britain); in my opinion it should be recreated, with the scope being the history of the island. Ham II (talk) 10:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. I don't think re-creating the category will solve the underlying problem. The comparison with Category:History of Ireland is tempting, but I think the island of Ireland can much more easily be taken as a scope, as both the Republic and Northern Ireland are relatively recent phenomena that lead to few ambiguities for categorisation.
Perhaps we should first delete the 19th, 20th and 21st-century categories and go from there? NLeeuw (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should immediately delete the 19th, 20th and 21st century ones which have no articles and only the requisite English, Scottish, and Welsh sub-categories. PearlyGigs (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be rather artificial if a category tree for the island ended in the 18th century. Could there be a "United Kingdom > Great Britain > England, Scotland and Wales" (plus "Ireland (1801–1923)" and "Northern Ireland", as appropriate) structure for the 19th century onwards? Ham II (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cathedrals in Baku

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, Category:Cathedrals in Azerbaijan is otherwise nearly empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Catholic churches

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, mostly just one or two articles per category, merging them facilitates navigating to more church articles more easily. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Oriental Orthodox monasteries in Azerbaijan

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary layer. Contains Armenian Apostolic sub-cat, and 1 page Yerits Mankants Monastery which says it was affiliated with Armenian Apostolic Church. Move page into subcat and upmerge. The other parent Category:Oriental Orthodox monasteries by country already holds the subcat via Category:Armenian Apostolic monasteries by country, so a dual merge is not needed. – Fayenatic London 08:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


July 20

[edit]

Pre-statehood Colorado categories

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: If kept, rename to Foo in Colorado Territory because Colorado did not become a state until 1876. However, a single-redirect category is not helpful for navigation. Merge to Category:1874 in Colorado Territory, and redirect Category:1874 in Colorado to Category:1874 in Colorado Territory as a {{R from category navigation}}. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 20:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Homosexual concentration camp survivors

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I think we should rename this category to use the more inclusive and commonly used term of LGBT. The rename would also be more consistent with the other Nazi era category (Category:LGBT people in the Nazi Party‎) Mason (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri elections before Missouri was a state

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: If kept, rename all to Foo in Missouri Territory because Missouri was not a state yet. However, a tree entirely composed of single-redirect categories is not helpful for navigation, and should be merged to the respective "[Year] in Missouri Territory" categories. (Category:1814 Missouri elections has two redirects, but the principle stands.) Delete two other categories which will become empty once all of their children categories are merged. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 20:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Washington (state) categories

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: First, Washington (state) did not become a state until 1889, so these categories are redundant to the corresponding Washington Territory. However, this entire mini-tree is just to categorize two redirects, so we only need to move them the appropriate "[Year] in Washington Territory" categories and delete the tree. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 19:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parks and lakes in Jakarta

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Badly-named category that crosses two different types of things. No other category for either parks or lakes anywhere else in the world merges the two things into one shared category, and there's no reason why Jakarta's parks and lakes would have a uniquely Jakarta-specific need for different handling from everywhere else. In fact, this was originally at just "parks", and then got moved to this divergent name several years ago without any particular explanation given as to why such a thing would have been needed. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri Territory

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Missouri did not exist until 1821; beforehand, it was the Missouri Territory. Merge to reflect this, and keep redirects as {{R from template-generated category}}s {{R from category navigation}}. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 14:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC) (corrected rcat at 20:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Category:LGBT men artists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Moving to [full]. Norm is "Male artists". For the record, the speedy rename was supported by the category creator. @MikutoH and Marcocapelle: discussants. Mason (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Princes in Germany

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename for clarification that it is not about people after World War I, and to align with Category:People from the German Empire. Also check entries manually: if they do not belong here, they are likely to belong in Category:Princes of the Holy Roman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. ETA: Also support purge. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, shouldn't there be one for the German Confederation era between the Holy Roman Empire and German Empire? Just a thought. I know there was a brief North German Confederation but that was essentially a brief version of what became the united German Empire. The main big one was between the two empires was the German Confederation. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom SFBB (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dutch princes

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: this previous discussion was about Fooian princes or princes of Foo, but we certainly do not need them both. Purge entries that aren't about princes in the Netherlands and merge the two categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omnis Scientia, SFBB, and Hey man im josh: pinging contributors to previous discussion. See also discussion right above this one. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. ETA: also support purge. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom SFBB (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pig breeds originating from Indigenous Americans

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, one-article categories are not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Breeds originating from Indigenous Americans

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I also think the current category name is confusing/hard to parse. Mason (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Multiple citizenship

[edit]
Option A: rename Category:Multiple citizenship to Category:Multiple nationality.
OR: option B: rename Category:People with multiple nationality to Category:People with multiple citizenship.
Rationale: consistency. Until other arguments weigh in, option B is the preferred option per article title Multiple citizenship. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philippine Sports Commission

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Unneeded eponymous category that contains nothing apart from the main article. Paul_012 (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: In light of the population of the category since the nomination, I'm willing to withdraw my nomination (though it should continue as there has also been another delete !vote). --Paul_012 (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At the time of nominate, indeed the category contained only the eponymous article. I have since added applicable entries to the category. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pyramids and bipyramids

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: These are two different classes of shapes that shouldn't be lumped together. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tamil priests

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I think we should broaden the category to all clergy rather than the narrower priests. (I am not opposed to upmerging for now, given that this category has only one person in it) Mason (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD topic-sorting subcategories

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I originally brought this up here and nobody seemed to have any objection to moving forward or any reason why these are still useful, so here we are.
These categories are redundant to deletion sorting, which provides much more fine-grained sorting and is built in to scripts such as Twinkle. Their utility was clear in the past before deletion sorting became both commonplace and simple to do, but now they are just an unneeded extra step in the process. It is my guess that the only reason they are still in use is that these same tools require it as part of the nomination process. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no archive for closed discussions in these categories. They also overlap in scope, and their format does not support the overlap, unlike delsort. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is my understanding that any given deletion discussion may appear on more than one category page. If this is correct, then the overlap makes topics relevant to one's interest and expertise easier to find. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:55, 13 July 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) 01:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - I too find the categories useful when it comes to sorting every AFD discussion. @Mjroots: is right about his claim. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Oppose — I personally find CAT:AFD/G to be very helpful. I check into it frequently and it's my main path to somewhat regular AfD participation. The main AfD log is usually too broad and indiscriminate, and more specific deletion subcategories take a lot of time to maneuver through. Left guide (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Oppose. I find these categories useful -- they are the main way I access deletion discussions that I expect to find relevant to my interests. Mgp28 (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beşiktaş J.K. players

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This should be an intermediate layer in Category:Beşiktaş J.K., not a disambig category. This football club has several branches for other sports. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:33, 12 July 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) 01:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dominican Republic people of European American descent

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Weird and confusing name. Looking at the content of this category, it seems that this is not intended for Dominicans with ancestry in the U.S., as the parent categories would indicate, (for which we have Dominican Republic people of American descent) but in fact Dominicans from the local population of largely colonial European background, which is called the White Dominicans. José Ignacio Paliza is an example of that. Deletion is also an option. Place Clichy (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 June 6
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 21:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am going to ping all of the participants at the DRV thread.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above dicussion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery, Iñaki Salazar, Marcocapelle, SportingFlyer, Extraordinary Writ, Stifle, Polygnotus, and Alalch E.: please share your thoughts. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks for the ping. I have shared my thoughts here but I will repost them here for convenience:
Why should Wikipedia categorize people based on their ancestry? We don't know the ancestry of 99% of BLP subjects. For example, Category:Dominican Republic people of African American descent contains Max Puig who is also in the category Category:Dominican Republic people of Italian descent. But he is also in Dominican Republic people of Catalan descent, Dominican Republic people of Haitian descent, People of Ligurian descent, Dominican Republic people of Dutch descent and Dominican Republic people of Turks and Caicos Islands descent... Who gives a shit? We should remove this information about non-notable people. Do we really want to list everyone's ancestry for thousands of generations until everyone is from Africa? This obsession is unhealthy and insane. We have no reliable sources that give detailed information on the ancestry of anyone alive today, unless perhaps if you are a Habsburger or similar (and even in that case we only know a fragment). It is weird and potentially offensive to label people incorrectly based on flimsy evidence, notoriously unreliable amateur genealogical research and looks. Why do we not require sources for categorization? Just categorize people on their nationality/nationalities if there are reliable sources. Polygnotus (talk) 01:15, 20 July 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.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CFDALL

Leave a Reply