Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
< January 5
January 7 >

January 6[edit]

Establishments in Hejaz[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 14#Establishments in Hejaz

Category:1940s assassinated French politicians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We really don't need to diffuse at the intersection of decade, nationality, occupation, and manner of death. I have said that I preferred diffusing by nationality than continent, using this page as an example. However, I don't think we should be diffusing by continent at all. And what I meant was that IF the choice was between continent and nationality (and I had to pick one) Mason (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge, fortunately too few 20th-century French politicians were assassinated to make a split by decade worthwhile. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge. Although the 1940s were a flourishing era for assassinating politicians, the century category should suffice. Place Clichy (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:09, 11 January 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:LGBT people by identity and occupation[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This follows from the recent merge of Category:LGBT people by gender identity and occupation into Category:LGBT people by occupation. See also the recent merge of Category:LGBT people by sexual orientation and nationality into Category:LGBT people by nationality. These merges remove the intervening "by identity", "by sexual orientation", and "by gender identity" category levels, so that all LGBTQ+ identity-based subcats are more directly accessible to the reader (grouped together under a sort key, as in the "by nationality" cat). Currently, in Category:LGBT people by occupation, the trans and NB subcats are in the main category, the queer and intersex subcats are in the "by identity" subcat, and bisexual, gay, lesbian, and pansexual are yet another level down in "by sexual orientation".Trystan (talk) 19:09, 6 January 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:Sri Lankan political philosophy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete Category:Sri Lankan political philosophy. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 19:08, 6 January 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:Philosophy of mind images[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 19:06, 6 January 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:Works about philosophy of physics[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Philosophy of physics. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 19:06, 6 January 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:Sexuality by culture[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:History of human sexuality. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 19:03, 6 January 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:Tunisian politics by century[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 18:59, 6 January 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:Nigerian politics by century[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge but only to Category:Centuries in Nigeria. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 18:57, 6 January 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:Guyanese politics by century[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Political history of Guyana. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 18:56, 6 January 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:Islamic encyclopedias[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories. Mason (talk) 18:50, 6 January 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:Players of American football from Enugu State[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT User:Namiba 18:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now, there are only two articles, without objection to recreate the category when more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:53, 11 January 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:Revolutionaries from the Russian Empire[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 14#Category:Revolutionaries from the Russian Empire

Category:American inventors[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 14#Category:American inventors

Category:Alumni by university or college in the United Kingdom[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: keep. It is clear relisting would not change the outcome here. Given the contentiousness of the last CfD on this matter, I don't think anything constructive is going to come from this. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Alumni by English colleges and universities
Alumni by Scottish colleges and universities
Alumni by Welsh colleges and universities
Nominator's rationale: In every case I've seen, "Alumni" comes at the end. As far as I can tell, only U.K. univeristy and colleges alumni category are named as such. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Subcategories of Category:Alumni by university or college in Ireland also follow this style. Ham II (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and per consistency. BhamBoi (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. VegaDark (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm dubious of the construction "St Michael's College, Llandaff alumni"; "Llandaff" was a disambiguator in the former article name (before it was retitled St Padarn's Institute), not a part of the organisation's name. A construction such as "Royal Holloway, University of London alumni" does at least reflect the current official name, but arguably doesn't follow MOS:COMMA. Having the organisation's name at the end avoids some awkward grammatical constructions like these. No argument has been given why the other categories in the Category:Alumni by university or college tree shouldn't be at "Alumni of Foo". Ham II (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ham II, every other country has the name of their colleges and universities like this. WP:C2C clearly applies here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the comma: in the cases of these types of category - i.e. university alumni and faculty - the comma doesn't come at the end. It should be the name of the article and "alumni" at the end - Royal Holloway, University of London and Category:Royal Holloway, University of London alumni.
    A few examples: subcats of Category:University of California alumni, Category:California State University alumni. So your object, with all due respect, makes no sense. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "University of California, Berkeley alumni", "California State University, Bakersfield alumni", et al., don't follow MOS:COMMA – "Berkeley" and "Bakersfield" are parenthetical, so would have to be bracketed by pairs of commas. But as that results in the unnatural construction "University of California, Berkeley, alumni", it should be "Alumni of the University of California, Berkeley". Ham II (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For place names where disambiguation is necessary, e.g., Category:Phoenix, Arizona, subcats generally put the phrase at the end to avoid awkward constructions – so "Category:Mayoral elections in Phoenix, Arizona" is preferred over "Category:Phoenix, Arizona mayoral elections" (the latter is a redirect); the cases of university alumni and faculty should be like those. The exceptions are the maintenance category Category:Phoenix, Arizona stubs and its subcat, and Category:Phoenix, Arizona in fiction. That last one ought to be "Phoenix, Arizona, in fiction", to comply with MOS:GEOCOMMA. Ham II (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, we have the article titles List of University of California, Berkeley, alumni and List of University of California, Berkeley, faculty, which were moved to their current names with bracketing commas in July 2023, explicitly citing MOS:GEOCOMMA, but also List of University of California, Berkeley alumni in academia and five other sub-lists of the list of alumni, the titles of which don't have bracketing commas. If you ask me those should all begin "List of alumni/faculty of...". Ham II (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As per Ham II 14GTR (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all for consistency with alumni from colleges/universities in every other country. There is no WP:ENGVAR reason why the UK should be different. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Beyond consistency, one advantage of the "X alumni" formulation is that we don't have to figure out whether it should be "Alumni of X" or "Alumni of the X". I don't think there is an ENGVAR reason to prefer one formulation over another. Some of the relevant categories appear to be missing from this proposal; I don't see Category:Alumni of the Open University, for instance. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether to use "Alumni of X" or "Alumni of the X" could be found out by briefly checking the articles in any cases where it isn't immediately clear. (Obviously, that doesn't apply to any of the categories in this nom as the proposal is to move them in the opposite direction.) Also missing from the proposal are the individual colleges of the universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Durham (although Category:Alumni of Westminster College, Oxford – a former Oxford college – and Category:Alumni of Ridley Hall, Cambridge and Category:Alumni of Cranmer Hall, Durham are there). Ham II (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ham II, if this goes ahead as "support" for rename, those can be speedied. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Briefly checking the articles", when drafting an article that should be placed into one of these categories, means a cumbersome sequence of steps: going from the draft, to the article on the university, to the category for the university, to the category for people from the university, to the category for alumni. And I have not uncommonly encountered cases where there is no category for the university but there is still a category for their alumni, in which case this check doesn't work at all. Having a predictable category system is a better choice. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When drafting articles on individual alumni you'd just follow the convention for referring to the institution in running text (i.e., whether it's "at Foo School of Bar" or "at the Foo School of Bar", etc.) in the category name as well. The situation I had in mind when I mentioned "briefly checking the articles in any cases where it isn't immediately clear" was one or more potential CfD nominations in the future, for institutions outside the UK and Ireland. Ham II (talk) 08:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't tried drafting many of these articles on people from varied institutions, have you? "The convention for referring to the institution in running text" is not always consistently followed in category names, nor even in running text. And where is one supposed to determine the convention for running text when one is writing the running text oneself? Using a category system that avoids such conventions altogether, by putting "alumni" at the end, is much simpler. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do the sources you use to draft articles mention the institutions in any sentences of prose, or do they only list them infobox- or résumé-style? If the former, that's where one would determine whether or not to include an initial "the". Ham II (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject University of Cambridge, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject University of Oxford. Ham II (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 60 categories were untagged. I have tagged them accordingly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Place Clichy, @Marcocapelle, @LaundryPizza03, @Fayenatic london. Even though this should be an obvious WP:C2C, its caused a lot of opposition (likely from British Wikipedians). Opinion and/or advice would be appreciated. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Omnis Scientia: advice haha. Personally I try to stay away from very UK or very US related issues. Note that with academics both UK and US have a deviating format. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle, I can definitely understand why you stay away from it! Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:C2C carries no weight here. C2C is not a guideline for category names; that's what WP:CATNAME is. C2C is one of a very few tightly-defined criteria for using the Speedy CFD procedure to avoid the extra work and delay of a full discussion. All are intended for obvious cases where consensus can be taken for granted. C2C includes three riders, each of which exclude its application to the categories in this nomination. I understand that some people say "C2C" as shorthand for "consistency with the rest of the tree", but I disagree with the nominator's repeatedly saying "C2C applies". WP:C2C does not apply, and should not prejudge the outcome here. So forget C2C, and judge this renaming proposal on its merits, including (in)consistency with the rest of the tree. – Fayenatic London 16:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fayenatic london, so what would you suggest here? Rename these or the rest of the tree should be renamed to match this format? Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: per Necrothesp, "Alumni of" reads more naturally. In any case a recent enormous cfd renamed 'XXX faculty' to 'Academic staff of XXX' and we were promised that a follow-up cfd would rename all instances of 'XXX alumni' to 'Alumni of XXX'. Perspicax (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: we also drive on the left in the UK. Left is right! And vive la difference! I agree with the above that "Alumni of ..." is more natural in British English and less ambiguous for some categories that include commas, especially colleges. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I'm with everyone else that this reads more naturally and is easier to use. As others point out, we recently changed all the faculty categories to "Academic staff of XXX", so the consistency argument actually favours renaming all the alumni categories to "Alumni of XXX", unless we'd like to overturn that previous CfD. -- asilvering (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering, I think should be overturned. The exception shouldn't define the rule. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, WP:C2C applies. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we can change these to the current format then have an overall debate on whether it should be "X alumni" or "Alumni of X" - and "Academics of X" instead of "X faculty". Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Per Necrothesp. "Alumni of" reads better and is less ambiguous. --Uhooep (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and WP:C2C. No indication of WP:ENGVAR. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose i.e. keep, and nominate the rest of the world except the United States to use "Alumni of". They should all follow the renaming of academics/faculty categories to "Academic staff of" at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_January_3#Academics_in_Europe, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_January_29#Academic_staff_in_Africa_and_Asia and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_5#Academic_staff_in_Canada,_Central_America_and_the_Caribbean,_Oceania_and_South_America. – Fayenatic London 19:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would exclude the US because their faculty categories still use "X Uni faculty" as WP:ENGVAR, so their alumni should stay at the corresponding names "X Uni alumni". As for Europe, I still have a spreadsheet from last year's Academics/faculty mass renaming, which could probably swiftly generate a nomination for alumni, inserting "the" where appropriate. – Fayenatic London 19:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      How about not imposing your wacky British peculiarities of language on the rest of the world. Last year's renaming made the faculty categories much harder to use, because now there are five different systems ("X faculty", "Academics of X", "Academics of the X", "Academic staff of X", and "Academic staff of the X") where there mostly used to be one. It was not an improvement. We should not push the same badness into more categories. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ham II and Necrothesp. - SchroCat (talk) 16:00, 14 January 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:Same-sex sexuality[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: split. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: split, it is unclear why an intermediate category layer is needed. If content is clearly about same-sex sexuality then it belongs in Category:Homosexuality, if it isn't then it can't belong in a same-sex category either and then it belongs in Category:Human sexuality. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 6 January 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:Fictional characters who can teleport[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: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm shocked this category lasted this long, given that it's not defining in the slightest. Teleportation is usually a pretty basic magical ability in a lot of fantasy. For example, Edelgard von Hresvelg belongs here because she warps out in various cutscenes, but there is no way that teleportation is defining for her, or any of the other characters in this category. Fails WP:NONDEF. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Are you kidding me? Teleportation is a clearly defined and distinct superpower which many fictional characters have, and how is it any less of a defining character trait than any other supernatural ability in fiction? I think you just want to delete everything for the sake of deleting. AHI-3000 (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose and @user:qwerfjkl I would query the relisting, seems to be a clear consensus above. Hiding T 23:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hiding most of the !votes have fairly weak arguments (not least yours, which is missing any argument). Qwerfjkltalk 07:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Qwerfjkl um, I can see a lot of arguments above, and wouldn't characterise them as weak, so perhaps that's your subjective opinion? The deletion nomination is just as weak and the nominator has shown they don't understand the reason for the category given their suggestions for merge targets. So reading the argument above, it boils down to one person saying it's not definitive and three people saying it is, to which I'll add my voice. Can you explain to me which side is weak and how you came to that conclusion? Also, can you point out how the consensus could be made clearer, in light of you relisting as it's not clear? The argument has been made, based on guidelines at WP:CAT, that there are characters for which teleportation is a defining trait, and examples have been given of those characters. Appreciate your time, Hiding T 13:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hiding, I was mostly refering to AHI-3000's comment, which amounted to "it's defining" with no real reason, and then followed it up with a bizzare aspertion. Quite apart from that, even if a trait is defining for some members of the categroy, that does not necessarily mean that the category should be kept.
    All that being said, I could easily have closed as keep instead of relisting. I prefer to err on the side of safety and relist. Qwerfjkltalk 15:54, 12 January 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:African-American players of American football[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:EGRS. The rationale is the same as the recently deleted Category:African-American basketball players (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_2#Category:African-American_basketball_players). For the vast majority of African-American players of American or Canadian football, their ancestry is not cited in reliable sources and is not defining. The articles Black players in professional American football and History of African Americans in the Canadian Football League exist which detail how this has changed over time, which is a much better way of doing so than this category. User:Namiba 16:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. As I've pointed out in that nom, I think that this entire chain of nom's is problematic. The argument of "their ancestry is not cited in reliable sources and is not defining", while being a black american in the united states is still very much defining. At the very least, these pages need to be upmerged to the American players category instead of deleted. Mason (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Mason. Also, as I have repeated before, the POINT of these categories is to help with navigation and keep categories from getting too big. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are other means to diffuse large categories that are more pertinent, such as club, position, league, period etc. Guideline WP:FINALRUNG explicitly advises against using ethnicity as a means of diffusion (you should diffuse a large category by ethnicity if is it not already diffused by another non-EGRS characteristic). Place Clichy (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If reliable sources don't indicate someone's ethnicity, religion, sexuality, etc, then it is extremely irresponsible to put them into categories to which there is no proof they belong. It flies in the face of WP:BLP and WP:V, two core guidelines of Wikipedia. "I think they're X" is not a reasonable standard but that is how the vast majority of these articles are categorized.--User:Namiba 15:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am *extremely* skeptical of your statement that most of these pages aren't supported by evidence. For example, you said that Aquil Abdullah had "no claim of african heritage" [1]? You even called me snarky when I asked you about it (Talk:Aquil_Abdullah#Removed_categories). Yet, the page said "He was also the first African-American male to win a rowing national championship in 1996, when he won the single sculls competition.[2]" along with several sources supporting it. Mason (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think they are supported by evidence, by all means, don't take my word for it. Go read 10, 20, 100 random articles and see how many claim African-American ancestry.--User:Namiba 18:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's harder than it seems. Of course, some athletes' racial backgrounds are well-documented (Willie Thrower, Colin Kaepernick, etc). But if we're talking about a random guy who played a dozen games in the NFL in the early 2000s, we may struggle to find a source that explicitly mentions his race. Journalists do not always have a specific reason to bring up that topic. Zagalejo (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:BLPCAT, "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its verifiable reliable sources." Including categories which are unverified and unverifiable, which this is in the case of thousands of articles, is not a good idea. If it is not repeatedly mentioned in sources, it is, by definition, not defining and should not be included.--User:Namiba 15:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. In most cases, players are placed in this category not because they are commonly and consistently called African American football players by reliable sources, but by face test. Place Clichy (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging those who participated (on both sides) of the basketball discussion but have not already commented here so that we might form a consensus on these categories as well: User:Rikster2, User:Zagalejo, User:SportsGuy789.--User:Namiba 18:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per unchanged opinion from my deletion vote in the basketball discussion. This category is too vague, non-defining, and opens a door to a definitional discrepancy (i.e. Black is now the politically correct and commonly used description, not African-American). SportsGuy789 (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I just ran into this category editing an article and was surprised there was such a thing. How are biracial and multiracial players to be categorized? Or is Wikipedia intent on maintaining the "one drop" rule of the bad old segregationist South? As a big majority of NFL players are black or bi-racial, this category provides no useful illumination. Carrite (talk) 18:49, 6 January 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:Law enforcement in the United States in fiction[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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many US LEAs (e.g. FBI) are not police departments. Apokrif (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel that we don't need to segregate police departments from other types of law enforcement. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should rather merge to Category:Law enforcement in the United States in fiction (more general term,). Apokrif (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If merged then reverse merge, as law enforcement is the broader term. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Category:Fictional portrayals of police departments in the United States * Pppery * it has begun... 18:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge per Marcocapelle. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:17, 14 January 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.

Works by setting[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: no consensus. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 4#Category:Works by setting was closed (by me) in the opposite direction, as merge the Fiction tree to Works tree. This could be a possibility to consider in a future (re)nomination. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: Massive duplication, especially for future dates. Setting is inherently fictional, so any instances of non-fictional subcategories such as Category:History books about the 16th century can simply be moved out. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The rationale is flawed. Setting (narrative) is clear that non-fiction narratives also have settings. Any narrative, both fiction and non-fiction, will have a setting. 4meter4 (talk) 06:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, only for fiction it is meaningful to categorize by setting. Non-fiction has its own parameters. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I’m not sold on the idea that non-fiction narratives shouldn’t be organized by setting. It’s a fundamental aspect of nonfiction short stories for example that wouldn’t fit under other cats which would be used to sort history books and other types of nonfiction. Creative nonfiction works in particular benefit by sorting in setting cats. Not all nonfiction is the same. I personally would prefer to keep the works by setting and get rid of the fiction cats rather then the other way around if there must be a merger.4meter4 (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Category:Works set in the 20th century also includes Category:History books about the 20th century. History books in general have settings. Dimadick (talk) 08:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That exactly touches my earlier point about different parameters for non-fiction: non-fiction history books aren't said to be set in a period, they are said to be about a period (or more broadly, about a topic). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with you, @Marcocapelle. "Works set in the 20th century" surely should not include "History books about the 20th century" for exactly this reason. -- asilvering (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this sort of categories is generally understood as "fictional works", in other words fiction as a subcategory of works. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Technical note that the edit button for this section seems to be broken and redirects to random other sections on this page:

"Could not find the comment you're replying to on the page. It might have been deleted or moved to another page." Respublik (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think I have fixed this by inserting blank lines before the section headings in the first part of the page. – Fayenatic London 19:35, 6 January 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:Trick-and-draw games[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: soft delete. In future please do not perform out of process deletions, Bermicourt. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not a defining category for card games. The most common classification used is at "card game" which splits trick-taking games into plain-trick and point-trick games, each of which is further subdivided. This category sits awkwardly across both types and would include a very large number of games in which you simply play a trick and then draw another card, as opposed to trick-taking games where all the cards are dealt out. There is no way of further subdividing it which is why the systems used by recognised authors don't use it. Bermicourt (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nominator has emptied this category. Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There were 14 members previously, such as Two-ten-jack, Sixty-Six (card game), and Schnapsen.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:23, 6 January 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:Neuroscience education[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 17:19, 6 January 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:Roman Catholic chapels in South Africa[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge/delete. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains 1 article. No objection to recreation if it becomes sufficiently populated. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:46, 6 January 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:Fictional humans[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 14#Category:Fictional humans

Category:Fictional human races[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 14#Category:Fictional human races

Category:Irish Free State culture[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer with just one child (Category:Sport in the Irish Free State), which is already in Category:Culture of the Republic of Ireland through other means. Note that the Irish Free State (1922-1937) is not a former country, it is a former political regime of an extant country. Place Clichy (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 17:20, 6 January 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.

Religion in the Autonomous Region of Bougainville[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant layers with just one child. They are not useful for navigation. Place Clichy (talk) 16:14, 6 January 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:Chapels by country[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete Category:Chapels in Mexico and merge the rest. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Each only contains 1 article. No merging is necessary for the Mexico category as the article is in Category:Dominican churches in Mexico and Category:Roman Catholic chapels in North America. No objective to recreation if any become sufficiently populated in the future. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - It makes sense as there is not enough articles (unfortunately) to have a category of articles. Боки Write to me! 21:20, 10 January 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:Indigenous languages of Europe[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 14#Category:Indigenous languages of Europe

Category:Documentary films about men[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: manually merge per WP:EGRS, films about men in general is not a notable topic in itself. The merge should be done manually because most of the content is already in Category:Documentary films about music and musicians or in Category:Documentary films about politicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 17:20, 6 January 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:Paintings in Ede, Netherlands[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge.. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. A dual merge is not needed, the subcategory is already in Category:Paintings in the Netherlands by collection. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:41, 6 January 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:Pan-Oceanianism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge/delete. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one eponymous article (WP:C2F). Place Clichy (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I am taking the liberty to add another category to this nomination, which also contains only the same article. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, good catch. I support this as well. Place Clichy (talk) 15:35, 6 January 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.

Paintings in the Netherlands[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge/delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, there are some Dutch museums with a lot of notable paintings, but there aren't many museums for paintings, and thus a very detailed geographical category tree does not make much sense. The proposal consists of only a selective merge because much of the content stays in the tree of Category:Paintings in the Netherlands by city anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:59, 14 January 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.

Indigenous peoples of Europe[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 14#Indigenous peoples of Europe

Establishments in Baden by century[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These currently only contain C19 subcats. Once the "by century" cats are deleted, the template on the subcats will automatically place them instead in the parent e.g. Category:Establishments in Bremen. – Fayenatic London 12:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. It makes sense that only 19th-century categories exist because before the 19th century the articles are in better populated Holy Roman Empire categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nom. Mason (talk) 17:21, 6 January 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.

History of the Kilwa Sultanate[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge Category:10th-century establishments in the Kilwa Sultanate as nominated and delete the rest.. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge hierarchy which currently exists for one article alone (Great Mosque of Kilwa) aside from the Sultanate itself. – Fayenatic London 12:04, 6 January 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:Sidi Boushaki[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's really not enough here for a category. One category (with a single item), the person, and the Zawiyet named after them Mason (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, without objection to recreate the category when more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 6 January 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:Boumerdassi family[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There are only two people in this family category, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, without objection to recreate the category when more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 6 January 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:People from CITY by occupation[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There is only one occupation in each of these categories, which is unhelpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. One of them meanwhile has two subcategories but that does not change matters. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good catch! Thank you for always looking into the categories to see if the number has changed since I nominated them :) Mason (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. AlexandraAVX (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:08, 11 January 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:Performance psychology[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete Category:Performance psychology. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category/field. Merge to the closest area. Mason (talk) 04:41, 6 January 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:Arabi Malayalam-language education[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only page in here is about a memorial, upmerge for now until there's enough content to populate this category Mason (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete, the only article is about a building, not about language. Arabi Malayalam-language education is about the current activities in the building but that is not an attribute we normally categorize buildings by. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Marcocapelle – the article does not mention the language. – Fayenatic London 14:20, 6 January 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:Arabi Malayalam-language songs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one page in here, which is unhelpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, without objection to recreate the category when more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 6 January 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:Arabi Malayalam-language literature[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one page + a category (with only one page in it) in here, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, without objection to recreate the category when more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 6 January 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:Odia-language culture[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one page in here, which is unhelpful for navigation. The lone page is already in the potential target category Category:Odia language, so delete instead of upmerge for now. Mason (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, without objection to recreate the category when more articles are available.
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:People killed in the war in Sudan (2023)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same reason as the previous proposal TheLibyanGuy (talk) 02:51, 6 January 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:Eponyms in anatomy[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: dual merge. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge (or listify). There's only one page in here, which is unhelpful for navigaiton Mason (talk) 02:36, 6 January 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:Allelopathic substances[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one page in here, which is unhelpful for navgiation Mason (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete, biochemistry is a far too broad target for a particular substance. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me. I picked it based on it being a child category, but you're 100% right that it doesn't help/is too broad. Mason (talk) 17:23, 6 January 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:Uzès family[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. There's only one very short page in here, which is extremely unhelpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 01:54, 6 January 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:House of Goyon[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful to have this category with only two familty members it in. This family is primarily notable for having a male marry into Grimaldi line, and letting the Grimaldi name continue (If I'm reading Charles Auguste de Goyon, Count of Gacé correctly) Mason (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, without objection to recreate the category when more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 6 January 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:Incest in Greek mythology[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_28#Category:Incest_in_legend * Pppery * it has begun... 01:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely agree that it is a defining characteristic of stories in Greek mythology. But the category does not contain stories, it contains characters. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that distinction makes sense. Most of the figures mentioned above only feature in one myth, one centered around incest. How would incest not be a defining attribute for, say, Myrrha, Byblis, or Menephron? It's the only thing ancient authors mention them in relation to. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only contains characters, and this isn't a defining characteristic of said characters. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:09, 11 January 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:War in Sudan (2023)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is now 2024 and the conflict is still ongoing TheLibyanGuy (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also do note that when and if the war ends, the category name may need to be changed again. TheLibyanGuy (talk) 02:03, 6 January 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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_6

Leave a Reply