Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions

If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes.
Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

Speedy renaming and merging

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 11:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 2,051 open requests (refresh).

Current requests

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).

Category:Chief Secretaries of Ceylon to Category:Chief secretaries of Ceylon – C2A: MOS:JOBTITLES WikiEditor50 (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Chief Secretaries of Transjordan to Category:Chief secretaries of Transjordan – C2A: MOS:JOBTITLES WikiEditor50 (talk) 06:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Colonial Secretaries of Western Australia to Category:Colonial secretaries of Western Australia – C2A: MOS:JOBTITLES WikiEditor50 (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oppose as per MOS:JOBTITLES They are capitalized only in the following cases: When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself the category is addressing the position in and of itself. This applies to all the other listed categories as well Gnan garra 11:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Colonial Secretaries of Prince Edward Island to Category:Colonial secretaries of Prince Edward Island – C2A: MOS:JOBTITLES WikiEditor50 (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Colonial Secretaries of Newfoundland to Category:Colonial secretaries of Newfoundland – C2A: MOS:JOBTITLES WikiEditor50 (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Colonial Secretaries of Bermuda to Category:Colonial secretaries of Bermuda – C2A: MOS:JOBTITLES WikiEditor50 (talk) 06:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Colonial Secretaries of Barbados to Category:Colonial secretaries of Barbados – C2A: MOS:JOBTITLES WikiEditor50 (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Colonial Secretaries of the Bahamas to Category:Colonial secretaries of the Bahamas – C2A: MOS:JOBTITLES WikiEditor50 (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Chief Secretaries of British Guiana to Category:Chief secretaries of British Guiana – C2A: MOS:JOBTITLES WikiEditor50 (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Syrian intelligence agencies to Category:Ba'athist Syria intelligence agencies – C2C: Rename to match renamed parent article Ba'athist Syria. These are organizations associated with the previous government that ran the country. Longhornsg (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Looking at Talk:Ba'athist Syria there still is some uncertainty about the long-term name of the article. Also would not match the rest of the tree; we do not have Category:Ba'athist Syria. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Indigenous leaders in South America to Category:Indigenous leaders of South America – C2C: parent is "Indigenous leaders of the Americas", which uses "of" ^SMason_Garrison 18:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison: arguably the parent might be renamed to "in". Marcocapelle (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both parents? Indigenous people of South America also uses of ^SMason_Garrison 18:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. There is Category:Indigenous leaders in Canada. I guess "in" is technically more correct. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Hmmm. That's a good point. I don't have strong opinions about which is used. Should we take this to full to see if someone does? ^SMason_Garrison 19:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed requests

Category:Reading (process) to Category:Reading – C2D: Primary article is simply reading. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Needs to go through full discussion as C2D doesn't apply as its ambiguous, note I did support the RM for the article back in 2018. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beyond-visual-range air-to-air missiles to Category:Beyond-visual-range missiles – C2D: per Beyond-visual-range missile. 1857a (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Part of tree at Category:Air-to-air missiles; "Beyond-visual-range missile" is ambiguous for a category. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose not for the previous reason, which I disagree with, but for the fact that it will need to be dual merged into Category:Air-to-air missiles due to the change in scope. This is therefore something more fit for full discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no change of scope. "Beyond visual range missile" does refer only to air-to-air missiles. But to the lay user, it by itself is WP:JARGON and thus ambiguous on its own. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this batch, Ghaznavids ruled the Ghaznavid Empire. It makes sense there is only one article for both, but the category is about the empire, not (so much) about the dynasty. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages using Turkey district templates with unknown parameters to Category:Pages using Turkey district areas with unknown parameters – C2D. Gonnym (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it's not the parameters that are unknown; it's the parameter values. I could be wrong. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Peggy Jay family to Category:Jay-Garnett family - To better summarise the contents as the family is wider than just direct relatives of Peggy Jay. OGBC1992 (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this is the speedy material. @OGBC1992:, would you mind taking it to full CFD with literally the same justification? Ymblanter (talk) 10:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ymblanter I am not sure how to take something to CFD if you wouldn't mind assisting? Many thanks. OGBC1992 (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women's Championship (England) to Category:Women's Championship and sub-categories – C2D per Women's Championship. CNC (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Women's Championship (England) awards to Category:Women's Championship awards
- Category:Women's Championship (England) managers to Category:Women's Championship managers
- Category:Women's Championship (England) players to Category:Women's Championship players
- Category:Women's Championship (England) football club squad templates to Category:Women's Championship football club squad templates
- Category:Women's Championship (England) teams to Category:Women's Championship teams
  - Oppose this batch, too ambiguous. C2D does not apply because of Women's Championship (disambiguation). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, maybe this needs a broader discussion as the (England) disambiguator needs correcting either way, given the league isn't England-based at all. If Cardiff City Ladies F.C. were promoted, we'd obviously be back to the drawing board. I'm surprised this lasted so long as a slap dash inaccurate name post moving away from the FA, but I digress. Maybe (association football) is the better option that is distinguishable, assuming we want to avoid (NewCo) for numerous reasons. CNC (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CommunityNotesContributor: then better take this to full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given I've fumbled this request in more than one way so far, I'll respectfully back out and move on now, in the hope that another editor more experienced with category moving can propose otherwise. I guess this can be moved to opposed/closed or however things work around here. Apologies for the mess. CNC (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all needs discussion. Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is your problem, sir? The vast majority of Wikipedia articles related to the ancient Near East use "ancient Near East" (the same goes for the articles/categories about ancient Rome, ancient Greece and ancient Egypt). Also, "Museums of Ancient Near East" categories are missing the definite article regardless of your preferences ("Museums of the Ancient Near East" or "Museums of the ancient Near East").--Russian Rocky (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with adding "the" - it's "ancient" that needs discussion. If it it is true that "the vast majority of Wikipedia articles related to the ancient Near East use "ancient Near East" (the same goes for the articles/categories about ancient Rome, ancient Greece and ancient Egypt)" this is only because of recent campaigns by a handful of capitalization fanatics, acting without discussion or consensus. Johnbod (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So why don't you discuss it on Talk:Ancient Near East instead? To begin with, there is not enough people in CFDs to discuss this matter. Also, what "capitalization fanatics" are you talking about? Are you aware that "Ancient Near East" was changed to "ancient Near East" in 2011 (Talk:Ancient Near East#Capitalization)? Here's an excerpt: "According to The SBL Handbook of Style For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (p. 153), "Ancient" should not be capitalized, not in "ancient Near East" nor in "ancient Near Eastern"." Since 2011, nobody has talked about capitalization on Talk:Ancient Near East.

Except Category:Novels set in the Ancient Near East, Category:Films set in the Ancient Near East, Category:Sculpture of the Ancient Near East, other categories with no definite article should be renamed in any case. I suggest to stick to "ancient Near East" at first because it's more widespread inspite of your claim about "a handful of capitalization fanatics" (you provided no evidence that "ancient Near East" is controversial and is under discussion). Personally, I don't care whether it is "ancient Near East" or "Ancient Near East", but the current consensus is apparently the former and let's stick to it.--Russian Rocky (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most category and article page names do use lowercase "ancient" in phrases like "ancient Rome" and "ancient Greece" (excluding language designations). See usage throughout the Ancient Rome page, Social class in ancient Rome, Patrician (ancient Rome), Timeline of ancient Greece, Category:Wikipedians interested in ancient Rome, Category:Novels set in ancient Rome, Category:Prosopography of ancient Rome, Category:Wars involving ancient Greece, Category:Battles involving ancient Greece, Category:Culture of ancient Greece, and Category:History books about ancient Greece for examples. I believe we should aim for consistency in article and category names. Many of these pages and categories have had these names for quite some time and were not moved recently. If you would like to use uppercase in phrases like "Ancient Greece", why not propose this at the talk pages of the main pages? WikiEditor50 (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Russian Rocky: are you planning to move this to full discussion? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. Unfortunately, I can't figure out myself what Johnbod's problem is. He claimed that the vast majority of Wikipedia articles related to the ancient Near East use "ancient Near East" because of "recent campaigns by a handful of capitalization fanatics, acting without discussion or consensus", but there is no evidence that "ancient Near East" is controversial and/or is under discussion. I agree with InverseHypercube on Talk:Ancient Near East who said the following: "According to The SBL Handbook of Style For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (p. 153), "Ancient" should not be capitalized, not in "ancient Near East" nor in "ancient Near Eastern"."
See The SBL Handbook of Style For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (Appendix A: Capitalization and Spelling Examples) at the Internet Archive: p. 153: "ancient Near East (noun)" "ancient Near Eastern (adj.)".--Russian Rocky (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Infantry weapons to Category:Small arms and light weapons – C2D: Infantry weapon currently points to Small arms and light weapons. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the common useage is "infantry weapon", vis-a-vis the legal/treaty definition. This is a case where searching would be better served, IMHO, by having the article and category at different titles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flying disc to Category:Frisbee – C2D: Per frisbee, the main article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - subcategories Category:Flying disc games and Category:Flying disc tournaments aren't logically renamable to "Frisbee foo", and "Flying disc" is the generic term of Frisbee. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Those are not the main article of the category, so that isn't relevant at all. Frisbee is an unequivocally genericized term for all flying discs, as there has been consensus in the main article to demonstrate with the title. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's relevant because renaming this would create a mis-match between the main category and its children. I believe this should be given a full CfD accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right now there is a mismatch between the category and its primary topic. I don't see how that is any less relevant or why its other articles should be prioritized first. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Category names do not have to match the name of their primary topic. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold pending other discussion

Category:Possibly fictional pirates to Category:Pirates whose existence is disputed – C2C: parent is People whose existence is disputed ^SMason_Garrison 06:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose speedy There are fare more subcategories of Category:People whose existence is disputed that use "Possibly fictional" than "whose existence is disputed", and therefore it's not a clear convention to apply C2C. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all being renamed to match this parent. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 19#Category:Possibly fictional people from Europe ^SMason_Garrison 06:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case we should wait until that is concluded and if it does then we can process this. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pro-Russian military personnel killed in the war in Donbas to Category:Russian military personnel killed in the war in Donbas – C2C: parent is Russian military personnel killed in the Russo-Ukrainian War ^SMason_Garrison 14:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Smasongarrison I would suggest a full discussion for both categories as the war in Donbas involved Pro-Russian military units rather than only Russian military units and the members of the category are almost all Pro-Russian Ukrainians. Category:Pro-Russian people of the war in Donbas is a parent of Category:Russian military personnel of the war in Donbas and a grandparent of Category:Pro-Russian military personnel killed in the war in Donbas. TSventon (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Why is Category:Pro-Russian people of the war in Donbas a parent of Category:Russian military personnel of the war in Donbas? Pro-russian is a cause not a nationality. ^SMason_Garrison 19:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Category:Russian military personnel of the war in Donbas contains Russians and Ukrainians so it is not really a nationality category. TSventon (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  If that's the case, then the category should either be renamed to Pro-Russian military personnel of the war in Donbas or purged to only include russian nationals. I personally don't care which way it goes, but the naming isn't consistent. Can you take it to full? ^SMason_Garrison 19:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Done at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 19#Category:Russian military personnel of the war in Donbas. TSventon (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stainton, south Cumbria to Category:Stainton, Westmorland and Furness – C2D: Match Stainton, Westmorland and Furness. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ambiguous with Stainton, Dacre, see User talk:Hey man im josh#Stainton. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Postpone until we know the result of the proposed move of Stainton, Westmorland and Furness. Grutness...wha? 03:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to full discussion

Category:Sailing clubs in Maine to Category:Yacht clubs in Maine – C2C. User:Namiba 21:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose speedy per Category:Sailing in the United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle:, the parent category is Category:Yacht clubs in the United States, which is the common useage for this sort of organization and was just kept at that name at CFD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said, nominated all of the subcategories at CfD.

Category:Alvarado wrestling family to Category:Alvarado professional wrestling family – C2C: Per all other subcategories of Category:Professional wrestling families. Mike Selinker (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose speedy The main article is Alvarado wrestling family. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Brought up for full discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neapolitan families to Category:Families of Naples – C2C: Per other categories in Category:Italian families. Mike Selinker (talk) 07:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for speedy, we should discuss whether Category:Families from the Kingdom of Naples is perhaps a better target. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed and brought up for full discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bailey family (Rugby) to Category:Bailey family (rugby) – C2A: Capitalization. Mike Selinker (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose needs to be "rugby league", as opposed to rugby football, or indeed Rugby, England. Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed and brought up for full discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Persian physicists to Category:Ancient Persian physicists – C2C: parents are Ancient Persian people and Iranian physicists. Category:Persian people has a disclaimer that "historic Persian people use Ancient Persian people (before AD 500) or Medieval Iranian people (AD 500 to AD 1500)" ^SMason_Garrison 20:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison: the articles are about medieval people. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be equally fine with Medieval Iranian physicists. ^SMason_Garrison 21:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Smasongarrison: sorry for bothering you again but I think there is no longer a speedy criterion applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Can you bring it to full? ^SMason_Garrison 14:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current discussions

Shortcut

WP:CFDC

December 24

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:American social media influencers

Propose merging Category:American social media influencers to Category:American Internet celebrities

Nominator's rationale: Is this really a defining category that's distinct from American Internet celebrities? ^SMason_Garrison 04:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete, if applicable the articles are already in Category:American bloggers, Category:American YouTubers, Category:American TikTokers etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that. ^SMason_Garrison 16:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge, and oppose deletion for that matter. Having the subcategory makes for more consistency with our articles, Internet celebrity and influencer, and the existence of the category—and the heaps of secondary source coverage about 'social media influencers' and all manner of web platform based persons like YouTubers and TikTokers—go to show that these are sufficiently defining categories. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 12:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YouTubers and TikTokers were exactly my point. We already have categories for them. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I may have written unclearly. My point was that YouTuber and social media influencer are separately notable. Michael Sugrue was a YouTuber, but to call him an "influencer" would to me seem to be misunderstanding the genre of his content (education in the history of philosophy). It's possible to be an Internet celebrity, or a noteworthy/notable person on the Internet, without being a social media influencer, making it useful to have influencers as a subcategory. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think nowadays social influencers is a broad term, well covering all YouTubers and TikTokers. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; "influencer" carries a connotation of trendsetting, especially in the realm of purchasing decisions, e. g., vloggers plugging their Stanley drinking tumblers, Instagrammers recommending articles of clothing, etc. That's not a connotation that readily connotes a documentarian YouTuber like Kevin Perjurer of Defunctland, or an education TikToker like historian J. Draper. (as well as aforementioned historian YouTuber Michael Sugrue; I don't really see "influencer" as the point of overlap between that guy and Mr. Beast.) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Hydrangeans's most recent comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the discussion above: Category:TikTokers has been a stable subcategory of Category:Social media influencers since December 2019 shortly after the category was created. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison: I notice the problem is larger, there is also Category:Internet celebrities and Category:Social media influencers. So you might consider withdrawing this nomination and restart at a higher level. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths from cardiovascular disease

Propose deleting Category:Deaths from cardiovascular disease (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination. This cat was tagged for speedy deletion as G4. There was indeed a CfD back in 2021 where this was deleted by consensus. I declined the speedy because this was a lot of material to remove without a discussion, and IMHO I felt this call was just outside of the trust of the community for any one single trusted user. I have no interest in the outcome. BusterD (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Containerize, death by cardiovascular disease in general is too common to categorize by. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on the previous: if the category is not kept then at least the subcategories should be moved to Category:Deaths by type of illness. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments in previous discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think containerize is the solution here, so that the subcategories are at least moderately closely linked. ^SMason_Garrison 15:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Containerize per above. If it is known, then it is defining. Respublik (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria what are your thoughts on containerization? ^SMason_Garrison 17:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a need for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would allow related caused of death to be easily navigated between. ^SMason_Garrison 05:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can get a clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Both defining, and relatively easy to locate available sources on it. Dimadick (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still appears to be consensus for a change, but no consensus on what the change should be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from the Crown of Castile

Propose merging Category:People from the Crown of Castile to Category:Castilians

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories. If merged, this category should be left as a redirect. If not merged, I think we need an extremely clear definition of how these categories are distinct. ^SMason_Garrison 17:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diffuse among the 12th- to 15th-century subcategories of Category:Castilians. Admittedly the latter is rather vague: without the description on the category page it might also refer to modern Castilians. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact a reverse merge would solve the latter problem. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the difference in page history, I'd rather rename Category:Castilians to Category:People from the Crown of Castile, and leave a redirect for some categories behind the scences ^SMason_Garrison 05:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge as discussed above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Castilians. If there are no further comments we should be all set for a reverse merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from the Crown of Aragon

Propose merging Category:People from the Crown of Aragon to Category:People from the Kingdom of Aragon

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories. ^SMason_Garrison 16:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Technically Valencia, the Balearic Islands and Sicily belonged to the Crown of Aragon but not to the Kingdom of Aragon. The articles directly in this category are about people from the Kingdom of Valencia or the Kingdom of Majorca. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decades in history

Propose manually merging Category:2000s in history to Category:2000s
Propose manually merging Category:2010s in history to Category:2010s
Propose manually merging Category:2020s in history to Category:2020s
Propose manually merging Category:2030s in history to Category:2030s

Nominator's rationale: merge, no clear distinction versus their parent category. The decades as a whole are, or will become, part of history. The merge needs to happen manually because many articles are already in, e.g., Category:2000s decade overviews. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I oppose this proposal, because Category: 2020s decade overviews, et al, includes 2020s in sports, 2020s in fashion, 2020s in music, 2020s in film, etc etc,

the category Category: 2020s in history has a few highly useful and highly specific roles ; a) it is for articles describing history in a broad narrative style , namely, 2020s in history, 2020s in military history, 2020s in Asian history, etc etc. and b) it is also for sub-categories pertaining to that decade's history, such as Category: 2020s in military history, Category:2020s in women's history, etc; so clearly those are not limited only to articles that are decade overviews.

And Category:2020s is clearly a broad umbrella category, with hugely wide scope, so it is not interchangeable with this category. Sm8900 (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The concept of history is inseparable from time periods. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on LaundryPizza's argument?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-governmental organizations

Propose purging Category:Non-governmental organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Note that I'm proposing purging rather than deletion; however, there may be a case to be made that deletion might be preferable due to the scope of the problem.
The term does have a technical definition, but is routinely overused to the point of meaninglessness in the real world, encompassing nearly any organization that exists at all regardless of whether it fits the technical definition of an "NGO" or not — so previous discussions (e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 5#Category:Non-governmental organizations by country) have established a consensus that trying to categorize for the distinction between organizations that are "non-governmental" and organizations that are not "non-governmental" was not a productive use of wikipedians' time and energy. Accordingly, the category explicitly has a usage note on it saying "This is not a category for articles about individual organizations", as well as a {{Diffuse}} template on it, but unsurprisingly is quite populated by articles about individual organizations. Bearcat (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What, exactly, needs to be purged from the category? All the articles? Only articles that don't fit the proper definition? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the category; thoughts on LaundryPizza's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say, purge all individual organizations (all articles except the two on top). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who have sacrificed their lives to save others

Propose deleting Category:People who have sacrificed their lives to save others (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Vague and nondefining category ^SMason_Garrison 16:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find this preposterous. How is this vague? Should it be "People who have knowingly sacrificed their lives to save others"? "People who have knowingly died when directly acting to save others"? Blockhaj (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only two articles in a category that does not fit anywhere, we better add a direct link in the See also section of the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are tons of people throughout history which can be added to this category. Blockhaj (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- They do not all get a Wikipedia though. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sure, but there surely must be tons of articles out there which fits this category no? The current two articles were just the ones i could think of in the moment of creation. Blockhaj (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  If you don't add any other articles yourself it'll be very unlikely this category gets further populated. Other editors will not be aware that the category exists because it doesn't naturally belong in any category tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I do not see why that is a reason to delete it? Blockhaj (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I have now added more articles and placed it under the category of altruism. Blockhaj (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That does not help. Editors expect to find topic articles in this tree, not biographies. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  The purpose of categories is to help navigation. This category doesn't do that, and even if it did the question of whether this meets the criteria of a defining feature. ^SMason_Garrison 15:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Shouldn't categories help with gathering articles with the same or similar nature? I never find that categories help with navigation, at least on English Wikipedia. Anyhow, which "tree" should this be put under? Blockhaj (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  They don't help with gathering, they help with reading articles about a similar topic after the gathering has been done. And your last question is exactly my earlier point, it does not fit in any tree so it'll never be populated by anyone else. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be well defined and useful — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the nominator. If kept, it should be renamed as something like People who died after attempting to save others/People who died after saving others, because the intention to sacrifice their life is hardly determinative baring exceptional circumstances. Even then it is somewhat clunky and opaque.Respublik (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The construction "sacrificing one's life" (etc) is cherry picked as it is the most common poetic phrase for this (next to "giving one's life" which is more ambiguous). A more strict and direct name will make the category harder to find i think. Instead, the category itself has a specifying note written on it: People who have knowingly died when directly acting to save others.. This can further be expanded on if needed. Blockhaj (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename.' I think a good title might be people who died due to efforts to save lives. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is vague imo and not what the category is about. Its about people who knowingly died to save others. Blockhaj (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that in many cases, the person did not know whether they would die when attempting to save someone else. They acted despite the risk to themselves, but they could be certain of the exact outcome beforehand — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok, perhaps rename to people who knowingly died due to efforts to save lives. Sm8900 (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea for the category is to list people who knew they would most likely die as a result of attempting to save others lives. Ie, they would sacrifice their life (not in the sense of using one's whole life span to invent or create something to save others). Take Vince Coleman (train dispatcher) as an example. Blockhaj (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It is indeed vague and impossible to define.--User:Namiba 15:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom but suggest creating list. Certainly there are notable people who did this but it doesn't fit as an encyclopedic category per se, because there's too many vagaries here. However, I propose people who support this category consider creating a list (see all the lists on Lists of unusual deaths) because I think there are probably enough sources that support this as a notable topic. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 18:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Listify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Engineers from Jharkhand

Propose merging Category:Engineers from Jharkhand to Category:Scientists from Jharkhand

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge, as for the merge target I am not sure if an engineer properly belongs in a scientists category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lost in Quebec: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment? House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alvarado wrestling family

Propose renaming Category:Alvarado wrestling family to Category:Alvarado professional wrestling family

Nominator's rationale: Opposed on Speedy. The article is at Alvarado wrestling family but this is a subcategory of Category:Professional wrestling families, so I thought the rename made sense. Mike Selinker (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it makes more sense to have Category:Professional wrestling families renamed to Category:Wrestling families. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably a good idea, though it's a subcategory of Category:Professional wrestling. So, if so, it should move to be a subcategory of Category:Wrestling.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Professional wrestling families. Further discussion on which category should be renamed is needed :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose moving to "category:wrestling families". Professional wrestling is not the same thing as wrestling. They share similar moves, but it's similar to the difference between a Ballerina and a Gymnast.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arab supporters of Israel

Propose renaming Category:Arab supporters of Israel to Category:Arab Zionists
Propose renaming Category:Muslim supporters of Israel to Category:Muslim Zionists

Nominator's rationale: This category should either be renamed to be consistent with the child categories of Algerian Zionists etc, or the subcategories should be purged or renamed. Being a Zionist doesn't mean that you support the state of Israel. Zionism advocates for a Jewish homeland; not all Zionists support the state of Israel. And people who support Israel don't need to do so because of Zionism. @AHI-3000: for making me aware of the category naming discrepancy ^SMason_Garrison 03:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support and also rename Category:Muslim supporters of Israel to Category:Muslim Zionists, in order to match it with Category:Arab Zionists and Category:Christian Zionists. AHI-3000 (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with adding the category to the nomination. But you need to tag it. ^SMason_Garrison 03:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison: I already placed the CFD template on Category:Muslim supporters of Israel. AHI-3000 (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison: Should we combine #Category:Muslim supporters of Israel into this discussion? AHI-3000 (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm fine with adding the category to the nomination" ^SMason_Garrison 04:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Supporters of Israel are explicitly Zionists. Dimadick (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. @Smasongarrison doesn't agree though, even though almost everyone agrees that "Zionist" is usually used to mean "supporter of Israel". These meanings are far from being mutually exclusive. AHI-3000 (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of tagging me? I literally made the nomination. I don't disagree that the common understanding is that these are often used as synonyms. ^SMason_Garrison 03:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So do you agree or not that Category:Muslim supporters of Israel is an appropriate subcategory of Category:Zionists? AHI-3000 (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not appropriate until it is renamed. ^SMason_Garrison 04:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Zionism and Christian Zionism are specific ideologies. See nomination above. There is no Arab Zionism ideology. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. It's eminently possible to support Israel without being a Zionist. Grutness...wha? 03:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you're opposing the rename, but what are your thoughts on the rest of the proposal. "This category should either be renamed to be consistent with the child categories of Algerian Zionists etc, or the subcategories should be purged or renamed." ^SMason_Garrison 23:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. It looks like this is the odd one out of a big tree. Perhaps it should be renamed after all, and then the entire tree be brought up for discussion at relevant WikiProjects... Grutness...wha? 03:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be in favor of renaming all siblings (e.g. to "Zionist activists") and purging, but that does not take away the fact that Category:Arab supporters of Israel is an accurate name for the category that is nominated here. It can simply be removed from the Zionists tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Muslim supporters of Israel, but I still do not see consensus for any particular action. Further discussion would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Engineers from Himachal Pradesh

Propose merging Category:Engineers from Himachal Pradesh to Category:Scientists from Himachal Pradesh

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge, as for the merge target I am not sure if an engineer properly belongs in a scientists category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's question?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lost in Quebec: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment? House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Substituted amphetamines

Propose renaming Category:Substituted amphetamines to Category:Amphetamines

Nominator's rationale: Per opposed WP:CFDS request:

Extended content

Category:Substituted amphetamines to Category:Amphetamines – C2C: Non-standard chemical class category name. See here (i.e., only a single use of "Substituted" in a chemical category name on all of Wiki) and compare other closely related category names like Category:Phenethylamines, Category:Beta-Hydroxyamphetamines, Category:Methamphetamines, Category:Cathinones, Category:Tryptamines, and so forth. – 76.174.0.57 (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main article of the category is Substituted amphetamine. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but see reasoning above and compare Category:Phenethylamines and Substituted phenethylamine, Category:Beta-Hydroxyamphetamines and Substituted β-hydroxyamphetamine, Category:Cathinones and Substituted cathinone, Category:Tryptamines and Substituted tryptamine, and so forth. Category:Substituted amphetamines is an outlier and goes against standards, including within its own category tree (it's a subcategory of Category:Phenethylamines and it contains the Category:Beta-Hydroxyamphetamines, Category:Methamphetamines, and Category:Cathinones categories). There is no reason for this inconsistency and it makes using these categories (i.e., knowing/remembering whether the category has the prefix "Substituted" in its name) more tedious than it needs to be. There are dozens of other examples as well (e.g., see here for just some of them); Category:Substituted amphetamines is the only exception having "Substituted" in the category name on the English Wikipedia. – 76.174.0.57 (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a month and there hasn't been any discussion, so I'm requesting feedback at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals. It looks like there's also some prior discussion above at Category talk:Substituted amphetamines#Rename; the page was previously moved from Category:Amphetamines to Category:Substituted amphetamines. I disagree with the reasoning there and think the category name would still be better as Category:Amphetamines, so continuing with the move efforts. – 76.174.0.57 (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support move per nominator — the argument re: consistency (WP:C2C) makes sense to me. After the move, we should make sure that both Amphetamine and Substituted amphetamine are main articles for Category:Amphetamines, analogous to Category:Phenethylamines.

NB. To ensure Category:Cathinones and Category:Methamphetamines are managed accordingly, I've just made Substituted cathinone a main article for the cathinones category, as well as adding Methamphetamine to the methamphetamines category, making it a main article. This seems like the right approach to me, but I have much more experience editing chemistry articles than I do managing categories, so please let me know if you disagree. Preimage (talk) 06:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neapolitan families

Propose renaming Category:Neapolitan families to Category:Families from the Kingdom of Naples

Nominator's rationale: A request to rename to Category:Families from Naples was opposed on Speedy, in favor of this better name. Mike Selinker (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Kingdom of Naples" was a very specific time period of Neapolitan history and I don't see why this category would be limited to this and not cover other time periods/kingdoms in Neapolitan history. Note there are only two articles in this parent category, one of which is Rothschild banking family of Naples, which was not from the time period of the Kingdom of Naples, but when Naples was part of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies (which succeeded the Kingdom of Naples). Also there is a subcategory Category:Neapolitan noble families, which is a subcategory of Category:Neapolitan nobility, which for stated reasons spans multiple kingdoms. Likewise the Gagliano family was prominent for about 200 years, in the Kingdom of Naples, the Kingdom of Two Sicilies, and the Kingdom of Italy. Neapolitan is a perfectly cromulent word that covers all of the history of Naples (in all its historic forms) and there's no reason to limit families (that span centuries) when they are notable by their geographic location, which is Naples. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 00:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Kaliforniyka's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of religious buildings and structures in East Timor

Propose merging Category:Lists of religious buildings and structures in East Timor to Category:Lists of buildings and structures in East Timor

Nominator's rationale: And other parents. Part of a mass cleanup after the recent rename of East Timor's article to Timor-Leste. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both the nominated and nominee categories are likely to be speedy-renamed now. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, only a single article in the category, not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politicians arrested in Turkey

Propose merging Category:Politicians arrested in Turkey to Category:Turkish politicians

Nominator's rationale: ^SMason_Garrison 02:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per reasoning below. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if not kept the category should be deleted instead of merged. The articles are already deeper in the tree of Category:Turkish politicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politicians arrested in the Maldives

Propose merging Category:Politicians arrested in the Maldives to Category:Maldivian politicians

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between being arrested for a crime and occupation. ^SMason_Garrison 02:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. We don't classify people by having been arrested. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if not kept the category should be deleted instead of merged. The articles are already deeper in the tree of Category:Maldivian politicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aim for the Top! images

Propose renaming Category:Aim for the Top! images to Category:Gunbuster images

Nominator's rationale: The official English name of "Aim for the Top!" (トップをねらえ!) is Gunbuster. Although Diebuster has its own name, in releases in English-speaking markets, it often has Gunbuster 2 (or "GunBuster 2") as another name used in conjunction with Diebuster. Furthermore, Gaina is working on Gunbuster 3. In addition, I created a category on Wikimedia Commons, commons:Category:Gunbuster, for that reason. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I wanted to add that a similar example of having the original name is the Neon Genesis Evangelion category, encompassing Neon Genesis Evangelion, Rebuild of Evangelion, and spin-offs. I figured that by following Evangelion's example, Gunbuster, as the franchise is known by its original name, could be more easily identified and more streamlined across the English-language Wikipedia. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 23

Category:Shooting civilians following mistaken identification

Propose renaming Category:Shooting civilians following mistaken identification to Category:Accidental civilian shootings

Nominator's rationale: This current name is awkward. My best attempt right now is "Accidental civilian shootings", but I'd love better ideas. I'm also not sure if this counts as defining, so that's also worth discussing. ^SMason_Garrison 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed name, Category:Accidental civilian shootings, is much broader than the current name, it includes many accidents while using the weapon (cleaning it, checking it, etc). It is a different category. דוד שי (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is something like Category:Bypassing people who were shot after being mistaken for a criminal. The parent categories do not make much sense, the only reasonable parent category I can think of is Category:Victims. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ambassadors of Algeria to Libya

Propose deleting Category:Ambassadors of Algeria to Libya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. As JPL pointed on out my talk page, the only person (Mohamed Larbi Zitout) in this category isn't an ambassador. They're a regular diplomat/civil servant. I've added them to Algerian expatriates in Libya, so there's no need to merge ^SMason_Garrison 22:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Association football families needing disambiguation

Propose renaming Category:Gray family (footballers) to Category:Gray family (association football)

Nominator's rationale: Several other subcategories of Category:Association football families use the full (and in this case, British) name of the sport to disambiguate. Typically, the disambiguator for any family category is a noun describing the occupation generally, not a grouping of practitioners like "footballers." Mike Selinker (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brown family (bankers of Baltimore)

Propose renaming Category:Brown family (bankers of Baltimore) to Category:Brown family (banking)

Nominator's rationale: I don't see any other categories of families named Brown in banking, and it should use the occupation name like Category:Stern family (banking). Mike Selinker (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral as category creator. When trying to come up with the title, I associated the family first with the city, but there were other Browns in Baltimiore so I added the bankers part. If banking alone is recognisable and precise enough then it should be fine. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alltuni family

Propose deleting Category:Alltuni family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: only an eponymous page and one family member, which isn't helpful for navigation. Delete for now. ^SMason_Garrison 19:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added one certain article and one more questionable article to the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Category-Class United States articles of NA-importance

Propose deleting Category:Category-Class United States articles of NA-importance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: All 171,000 pages (not articles) in this category all already a member of Category:Category-Class United States articles or Category:Category-Class United States pages on the one hand, and Category:NA-importance United States articles or Category:NA-importance United States pages on the other hand. Considering that all category-class pages are NA-importance by definition anyway, this means that we have three ways of expressing the same thing here, making this a superfluous combined category. Fram (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wives of Louis XII

Propose deleting Category:Wives of Louis XII (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Very small category with no prospect of expansion in which all articles are already categorised within Category:Queens consort of France. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Three wives is a perfectly reasonable size for this type of category. Dimadick (talk) 10:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, per nom, but merge to Category:Louis XII. Most "wives of" categories may be upmerged for the same reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder that we have Category:Wives by person, so this is not necessarily a unique category. I don't think size can be considered an issue when we have other similar categories with only two pages within them. I guess all of those categories need to be examined collectively not just this one. Keivan.f^Talk 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional gnomes

Propose merging Category:Fictional gnomes to Category:Gnomes

Nominator's rationale: Are there non-fictional gnomes? Fram (talk) 08:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. The lede in Category:Gnomes suggests that's the intention of the category, and it has a simpler name. No reason to have two categories here and no reason to keep Category:Fictional gnomes --Northernhenge (talk) 12:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the distinction seems to be about modern fiction as opposed to old legends. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is no real distinction. It would be hard to come up with one that isn't WP:OR. Jontesta (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main criterion would probably be if there is a known author behind it. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. While I'm not sure we have the right names for the categories, separate categorization strikes me as more helpful than not. Thinking about navigating categories as a reader, I would find it more confusing than clarifying if I find articles about medieval folklore like the Dutch legends about Kabouter next to pop cultural creations like cereal mascots Snap, Crackle, and Pop. As for whether there's a distinction, while the borders can be fuzzy and are socially constructed, as with lots of things in humanities about stories of non-reality like mythology, pop mascots, literature, etc., it's not original to us as Wikipedians to note a distinction that society has made. (See for instance A Companion to Folklore (Blackwell Publishing, 2012) for discussion of both the sometimes-association and sometimes-differentiation in society between folklore and forms of fiction like literature). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this reminds me of the difference in fairytales between the oral tradition and ones that originated with named authors. For the authored ones, some are written for children, some to express feminism, some as adult horror stories etc etc etc. --Northernhenge (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional proposal: create Category:Legendary gnomes as also a subcategory of Category:Legendary creatures. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the comments by Marcocapelle and Hydrangeans?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 20:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, after I just boldly created Category:Legendary gnomes, the argument that legendary gnomes and gnomes in modern fiction get mixed up is no longer applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per nom, just not enough individual fictional gnomes to make this a viable category. It might be recreated at a future date, but right now... it's not necessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I appreciate Marcocapelle being bold, the main topic for "gnomes" is gnomes from myth, not the derivative fictional ones. This should probably be handled more like Category:Fairies. In an effort to avoid usage of the phrase "pop culture", how about splitting to Category:Gnomes in fiction, instead? I think the "-in fiction" phrase is starting to gain standardization. - jc37 21:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If not merged, Category:Fictional gnomes should at least be renamed to avoid confusion, but Category:Gnomes in fiction is hardly any clearer. What about e.g. Category:Gnomes in modern culture? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fantasy video game characters by franchise

Propose merging Category:Fantasy video game characters by franchise to Category:Fantasy video game characters

Nominator's rationale: The following category feels incredibly out-of-place given the fact that there currently no other categories for "Fantasy __ characters by franchise" other than this one, and the "Fantasy video game characters" itself only has only other category; making this category ultimately unhelpful. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 22

Category:Same-sex marriage in Africa by country

Propose merging Category:Same-sex marriage in Africa by country to Category:Same-sex marriage by country and Category:Same-sex marriage in Africa
Propose merging Category:Same-sex marriage in Asia by country to Category:Same-sex marriage by country and Category:Same-sex marriage in Asia
Propose merging Category:Same-sex marriage in Europe by country to Category:Same-sex marriage by country and Category:Same-sex marriage in Europe
Propose merging Category:Same-sex marriage in North America by country to Category:Same-sex marriage by country and Category:Same-sex marriage in North America
Propose merging Category:Same-sex marriage in Oceania by country to Category:Same-sex marriage by country and Category:Same-sex marriage in Oceania
Propose merging Category:Same-sex marriage in South America by country to Category:Same-sex marriage in South America and Category:Same-sex marriage by country

Nominator's rationale: Based in this CfD.--MikutoH ^talk! 21:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2,6-Dihydroxybiphenyls

Propose merging Category:2,6-Dihydroxybiphenyls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Biphenyls and Category:Resorcinols (updated from deletion to merge as suggested by Marcocapelle)

Nominator's rationale: Category only contains one page, and cannot be easily expanded: only two pages are in both Category:Biphenyls and Category:Resorcinols, only one of which is actually a 2,6-dihydroxybiphenyl. Preimage (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the category be merged to its parents? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yep. Have changed the proposal from deletion to merge as suggested. Thanks! Preimage (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok then merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional insectivores

Propose deleting Category:Fictional insectivores (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: We don't have a category for insectivores, so it's odd to keep a category for fictional insectivores. Furthermore, while hedgehogs do eat insects, they are in fact omnivores so their presence in the category is questionable. All entries and subcategories are already categorized as Category:Fictional mammals. Pichpich (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Created this many years ago only because I saw it had been populated with articles (I presume it was rhinogradentia that put it on my radar). No opinion at all as to whether it's deleted. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pharmacy schools in Virginia

Propose merging Category:Pharmacy schools in Virginia to Category:Pharmacy schools in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Category only contains 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But the same can be said about all entries in Category:Pharmacy schools in the United States: the by-state subcategories are all very small. So we have to decide whether we keep all of them or upmerge all of them. Dealing with one in isolation does not make sense. Pichpich (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better merge all state categories simultaneously, per Pichpich. Besides it should probably be a dual merge, also to Category:Medical and health organizations based in Virginia. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Christians

Propose merging Category:Ante-Nicene Christians to Category:Ancient Christians
Propose merging Category:Christians of late antiquity to Category:Ancient Christians
Propose merging Category:Ante-Nicene Christian saints to Category:Ancient Christian saints
Propose merging Category:Christian saints of late antiquity to Category:Ancient Christian saints
Propose merging Category:Ante-Nicene Christian female saints to Category:Ancient Christian female saints
Propose merging Category:Late Ancient Christian female saints to Category:Ancient Christian female saints

Nominator's rationale: merge, unnecessary and arbitrary distinction, nothing became different about being a Christian or about sainthood at the Council of Nicea. The Edict of Milan was probably more impactful on being a Christian, but still it does not make too much sense to create container categories for three and two centuries respectively. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rebellions against the Ottoman Empire

Propose merging Category:Rebellions against the Ottoman Empire to Category:Rebellions in the Ottoman Empire

Nominator's rationale: They should be merged. They have same meaning. MRTFR55 (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, in practice there isn't much difference. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slavery in Italy

Propose merging Category:Slavery in Italy to Category:Economic history of Italy

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary for it to exist without more articles in it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge not delete. Otherwise the content gets isolated. ^SMason_Garrison 17:16, 14 December 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, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 09:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boycotts of apartheid South Africa

Propose renaming Category:Boycotts of apartheid South Africa to Category:Apartheid boycotts

Nominator's rationale: rename, better grammar. (I am definitely open to other suggestions.) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Currrently fits the format of subcategories of Category:Boycotts of countries and seems to be perfectly cromulent grammar to me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 09:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't clear to me that "apartheid South Africa" is meant to be the name of a country. I find it quite confusing. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rape in video games

Propose renaming Category:Rape in video games to Category:Video games about rape

Nominator's rationale: Move to a defining name from a non-defining name. I have nominated this category for renaming rather than trying to speedy it because many of the games in it have rape as a non-defining aspect of the story. There seem to be enough to justify a category of games where it is defining to the game, but it will have to be manually purged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming does not help if manual purging does not take place. Who is going to do the purging? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support if changed to Category:Video games about sexual assault. Some amount of purging will still be necessary. Jontesta (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's and Jontesta's comments?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: see above
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 09:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trees of the Eastern United States

Propose merging Category:Trees of the Eastern United States to Category:Trees of Northern America

Nominator's rationale: As with previous discussions on tree categories this will eliminate an inconsistently used category. It will reduce the amount of WP:OVERCAT and be similar to two previous mergers of all the national categories for tree to the umbrella Category:Trees of Europe in 2015 and the North American state and provincial categories in 2023. I suspect that all the species are already categorized in Trees of Northern America, but just in case I'm moving for a merge rather than a delete. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting because I have relevant professional knowledge: it is common to group Eastern North America when writing arboriculture guide books; see [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Whether that makes the category useful for navigation is something for persons smarter than I to decide. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trees, being plants, are already categorized into states and regions at outlined at Wikipedia:PLANTS/Using the WGSRPD. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can imagine that there is too much overlap in trees between the different regions, making categorization by region impractible. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Trees of the United States and merge in Category:Trees of the West Coast of the United States and Category:Trees of the Plains-Midwest (United States). The United States is large enough that by-continent is a little much, but subdividing it is WP:OVERCAT. However this would be a valid subcategory of Category:Flora of the United States. (Will tag the other two categories - this should probably be relisted considering it's the 12th.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on The Bushranger's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See above
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 09:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zhejiang Daily Newspaper Group

Propose renaming Category:Zhejiang Daily Newspaper Group to Category:Zhejiang Daily Press Group

Nominator's rationale: The official name TinaLees-Jones (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an empty category. It could have been tagged CSD C1 as it doesn't need a discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move articles back and rename properly, nominator started an out-of-process rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:West Slavic nobility

Propose merging Category:West Slavic nobility to Category:Slavic nobility

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category that's just a container category ^SMason_Garrison 02:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:CSD#G5 (created and populated by sock of banned User:Kriestovo Nysian); same goes for supercat Category:Slavic nobility. Don't merge but delete both. Neither of them is useful – there is no benefit in categorizing noble families by the language families associated with the nations they belong to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, trivial intersection between social class and language family. I have tagged Category:Slavic nobility too. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me ^SMason_Garrison 01:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Henry Ford Community College alumni

Propose renaming Category:Henry Ford Community College alumni to Category:Henry Ford College alumni

Nominator's rationale: The article Henry Ford Community College has been renamed to Henry Ford College GoingBatty (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per WP:C2D, article has been stable at the new name for 10 years. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Premierships in Canada

Propose renaming Category:Canadian premierships to Category:Canadian federal premierships

Nominator's rationale: Differentiation from subnational premierships. RedBlueGreen93 00:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Premiership of John A. Macdonald to Category:Premierships of John A. Macdonald

Nominator's rationale: Category lists articles from both of Macdonald's non-consecutive terms as prime minister. RedBlueGreen93 00:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Premiership of Pierre Trudeau to Category:Premierships of Pierre Trudeau

Nominator's rationale: Category lists articles from both of Trudeau's non-consecutive terms as prime minister. RedBlueGreen93 00:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Premiership of Maurice Duplessis to Category:Premierships of Maurice Duplessis

Nominator's rationale: Category lists articles from both of Duplessis's non-consecutive terms as premier. RedBlueGreen93 00:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom or split to separate categories per term. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 21

Category:Military aircraft of World War I

Propose deleting Category:Military aircraft of World War I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Header note on the category reads "Most articles about aircraft types that were used in World War I are in one of the 1910–1919 (first flight) categories listed below." - thereby acknoloedging that this is incomplete and is apparently intended to be so. Furthermore, this is one of the "performers by performance" type categories that are discouraged - we generally try not to categorise in this manner, because it can lead to very lengthy category sections for what are, sometimes questionably, defining characteristics (to give an example, is the Grumman F-9 Cougar, for instance, defined by the fact TF-9Js operated briefly in Vietnam?).

If kept, this should be thoroughly expanded to include all of the relevant types within it. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Profanity

Propose deleting Category:American Profanity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per above, creator seems confused about what categories are for. Remsense ‥ 论 19:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Other categories are sufficient, and as a European I can confirm that this vocabulary is not exclusively American. NLeeuw (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Category:English profanity already exists for the English language (including American English). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creator obviously thought Category:English profanity meant English in the sense of "in England" — but it's actually referring to the English language, so there's no need for a separate "American" category here. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:197 Countries World

Propose deleting Category:197 Countries World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Creator seems confused about the purpose of categories, apparent idea totally redundant. Remsense ‥ 论 18:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to Category:Countries, given the category description of These are the Countries of the World. Belbury (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an empty category. It could have been tagged CSD C1. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Liz: It wasn't empty at the time of nomination. The creator had added South Africa to the category which was reverted by another uninolved-here editor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Belbury. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparently redundant. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Electric power in Syria

Propose renaming Category:Electric power in Syria to Category:Electricity in Syria

Nominator's rationale: Main article is Electricity in Syria Chidgk1 (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, all countries have the current format (see Category:Electric power by country) and there is no specific reason why Syria should deviate. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While it's generally good to have category names follow the "lead article" name, it's not required, and as mentioned the entire rest of the tree is at "Electric power in X". (Note also the main article for this category was created today.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, the articles are often named "electricity sector of country" so I have proposed to rename the Syrian article likewise. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ESC/JESC entrant categories

Counterpart nomination to Song contest performer categories to formally nominate all sub-categories. I believe these all to be a violation of WP:PERFCAT, specifically performers by production. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Traumnovelle (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. dummelaksen (talk • contribs) 03:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terrorist incidents in Germany in 2022

Propose merging Category:Terrorist incidents in Germany in 2022 to Category:Terrorist incidents in Germany in the 2020s and Category:Terrorist incidents in Europe in 2022

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. There is only one article in the category and it can be merged into the wider parent categories. Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree in principle, but for consistency reasons all categories: Terrorist incidents in Germany in YEAR should be nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Portal-Class Comics articles of NA-importance

Propose deleting Category:Portal-Class Comics articles of NA-importance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: All these pages are already in the categories "Portal-Class Comics articles" and "NA-importance Comics articles", ideally they should only be in "Portal-Class Comics articles", which should be a member of "NA-importance Comics articles", and this redundant category can simply be deleted. Fram (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably some technical solution for this needs to be found, but when it is implemented, it can also be applied to other types of pages which are always NA, i.e. every page in all subcategories of Category:NA-importance Comics articles except the actual articles cats (stub, start, C, GA, ...) should be removed from "... articles of NA-importance" and "NA-importance comics articles". As an example, Talk:10th Muse is now in three cats, it should only remain in "Redirect-Class Comics articles", and that cat should get "NA-importance comics articles". Simplify by removing redundancy. But I guess this belong at the Village pump, as this seems to happen with some other projects as well, and is presumably too much for the scope of CfD? Fram (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: now at WP:VPPR#Cleaning up NA-class categories. Fram (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until the code to change all modules is posted and linked to from here We simply can't keep having these messes with class article categories where name changes are proposed but not properly implemented. The bot cannot amend the modules/templates to make this sort of change. In future proposers need to provide the code changes up front so they can be implemented when the CFD is closed, not leave another mess to accumulate with vague promises of future module changes. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be possible for people to propose these without having the knowledge to propose an actual code change, and the people at the module told me to first start a CfD to show that the code indeed needs changing. Fram (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - That just results in a mess when category changes get started but not completed and the closing admins are unable to process the change properly. If a complicated change is to take place it must be fully implementable and what needs changing clear before the discussion is closed. Otherwise we get yet more messes as the bots can't cope. If that locks things in rather than having another mess then so be it. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MSGJ, am I correct that the module already prevents populating redlinked categories? There are obviously going to be some caching issues with any updates, but that is unavoidable. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 17:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that is correct. For the quality/importance intersection categories, no category will be used unless it exists — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Timrollpickering: Is this sufficient? House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Try it and see. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean exactly? An example would be useful — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Portal-Class Comics articles of NA-importance and Category:Template-Class Guyana articles of NA-importance as completely redundant as all portals and templates will automatically and invariably have NA-importance. Please note: there are a few non-article classes which can be assigned an actual importance - redirects & drafts - because these are potential articles. So it might be worth retaining categories like Category:Redirect-Class Mumbai articles of Mid-importance and I would tend to defer to the preferences of the WikiProject in these cases — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Template-Class Guyana articles of NA-importance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This intersection is really not helpful in almost all cases. Gonnym (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the Australian House of Representatives by term

Propose deleting Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives by term

Nominator's rationale: Not a defining category and these categories result in career politicians having far too many cats that indicate essentially the same thing. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle: Are you proposing the deletion of all its subcategories as well? If so, they should be tagged. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. It seemed easier to list the parent than listing 50 categories. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They might not all need to be listed here, but they should all have the {{subst:cfd}} template placed on them. I used User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/massXFD to quickly tag all the subcategories. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Commonly used category structure (see Category:Legislators by term). Nothing unique about Australian politicians that make them an exception. Diffuses otherwise overpopulated categories within Category:Politicians by century and nationality. If preferred, I wouldn't be against the creation of categories such as Category:20th-century members of the Australian House of Representatives and upmerging into this. That is how American legislators are sorted. Jevansen (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jevansen: Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean this gets to. Heck, the issues with these categories mean that the Category:Legislators by term subcats may have to be brought here. ミラP@Miraclepine 23:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that applies to categories. Jevansen (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jevansen: Even if I didn't miss it (which I of course did), there are still times where the principles are functionally the same, and in this case this is so. ミラP@Miraclepine 03:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives, this is a ridiculous sort of overcategorization. That applies to every other country as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to century-wide subcategories of Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives and, like I said before, see to it we do the same to all the subcats in Category:Legislators by term. Other stuff exists, after all. ミラP@Miraclepine 23:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - National legislators is one of only a few topics for which there is inherent notability. As a result they are popular amongst editors looking to create new articles and virtually every country, even non-English speaking countries, has several hundred, if not thousands, of national legislator articles. Removing sub-categorisation by term will result in extremely large categories which are difficult to navigate. WP:DIFFUSE allows large categories to be broken down into smaller, more specific subcategories. For legislators the most obvious way to create smaller, more manageable categories is to diffuse by term. Diffusing by century won't help as this only creates two/three sub-categories which would all undoubtedly be overpopulated - I wouldn't be surprised if Category:21st-century members of the Australian House of Representatives contains more than a thousand articles already and we are only a quarter of the way through this century.--Obi2canibe (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 20

Category:Illinois Fighting Illini ice hockey venues

Propose merging Category:Illinois Fighting Illini ice hockey venues to Category:Ice hockey venues in Illinois and Category:Illinois Fighting Illini sports venues
Propose merging Category:Illinois Fighting Illini cross country courses to Category:College cross country courses in the United States and Category:Illinois Fighting Illini sports venues

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT (1 article). User:Namiba 23:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same person, different day! Seek and destroy is what drives this person. Spatms (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, the categories are unhelpful for easy navigation between related articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct indoor ice hockey venues in Kansas

Propose merging Category:Defunct indoor ice hockey venues in Kansas to Category:Defunct ice hockey venues in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT as it contains only 2 articles. Both articles are already in other relevant subcategories. The merge target is also currently up for renaming. User:Namiba 23:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, the category is unhelpful for easy navigation between related articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Logos of health-related websites

Propose merging Category:Logos of health-related websites to Category:Website logos

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Website logos. There's no point in isolating this logo in its own subcategory. Category:Website logos is not that big and can accommodate an extra item. Pichpich (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, the category is unhelpful for easy navigation between related pages. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States federal preemption law

Propose renaming Category:United States federal preemption law to Category:United States federal preemption case law

Nominator's rationale: Should not be controversial. "Law" categories refers to statutes and regulations and other kinds of written enactions. "Case law" categories refer to court decisions. This is a category for case law. lethargilistic (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the Sherman Antitrust Act redirect is to a case law section of that article, so I think it's fine as an exception. Kind of random, but whatever. lethargilistic (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about the speedy options until just now. I should have listed this there under WP:C2C. lethargilistic (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ranged weapon stubs

Propose merging Category:Ranged weapon stubs to Category:Weapon stubs

Nominator's rationale: Ranged weapon has been deleted, thus a merge is required as this category in its current state is not appropriate. This also implies that Template:Ranged-weapon-stub be deleted as well for similar reasons. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support; also delete Template:Bow-stub. – Fayenatic London 19:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Melee weapon stubs

Propose merging Category:Melee weapon stubs to Category:Weapon stubs

Nominator's rationale: With melee weapon now deleted/a redirect/etc. this category is no longer relevant or necessary. It is only generally used in a gaming sense anyway and is inappropriate for real life weapons. This also would include the deletion of Template:Melee-weapon-stub because it would be pointless without the associated category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this makes sense. Template:Melee-weapon-stub is only transcluded on two pages anyway; most of the contents use {{blunt-weapon-stub}} or {{shield-stub}}. – Fayenatic London 18:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dual screen phone

Propose renaming Category:Dual screen phone to Category:Dual screen smartphones

Nominator's rationale: All of the phones present, as of now, in this category are smartphones. Some are foldables, some are not. Almost all, or at least big majority of clamshell dumb phones have 2 screens. As it is now, all of those should also be in this category, but that is not necessary as the clamshell category covers them. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Dual screen" is not a "shape" so it would not properly fit in its parent category. It is also too vague to be defining. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:09, 4 December 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, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: see above
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 17:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Agapanthiinae-stub

Propose deleting Template:Agapanthiinae-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unused and malformed stub template. This was newly created within the past few days, but (a) hasn't been applied to any pages at all, (b) tried to stub-sort its theoretical entries into a redlinked category that doesn't exist to have pages in it but can't be created until the template's on 60 pages, and (c) even the class of thing it's purportedly for is a redlink in the template text, meaning I have absolutely no way to sort out what to do with it (such as what pages to add it to, or what higher-level category to have it upfile any such entries into).
Based on playing around with the word's spelling in the search bar, the best theory I can come up with is that this was a misspelling of Agapanthiini -- but if that's what they meant, then this is just redundant because {{Agapanthiini-stub}} already exists for that, and if they meant something else I have no other way to figure out what was intended.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can figure out that it actually has any potential use, but it can't be kept if it's both broken and unused. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It appears that Agapanthiinae is a valid subfamily, athough it seems as if it's usually included in Lamiinae? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 17:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the attempt to create the stub was initiated by the researcher who recently proposed raising the tribe to subfamily rank in a self-published work. No other researchers have adopted this classification, so this is a clear WP:COI violation, as are most of this same editor's other edits, mostly citing his own numerous self-published works. Self-published works are not generally considered reliable sources, and it's even worse when the editor trying to cite them is the author of those works. The number of WP:COI violations by this editor should be a real concern. Dyanega (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:White American football cornerbacks

Propose merging Category:White American football cornerbacks to Category:American football cornerbacks

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT, no reason to split people off based on whether they are White American or not, as skin colour doesn't have any impact on whether or not they are a cornerback. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American films set in New York City

Propose merging Category:American films set in New York City to Category:Films set in New York City
- Propose deleting Category:American films set in the United States (added 21 December)

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT. While categories such as Category:British films set in New York City and Category:French films set in New York City are valid, it doesn't make sense for this particular category to exist, considering that it's safe to say that the vast majority of films set in New York City are American. snapsnap ^(talk) 21:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. Instead I would propose renaming Category:Foreign films set in the United States (because foreign according to whom? English Wikipedia has a global audience and isn't exclusively American) to Category:Films set in the United States by country of production (or "of release"; something to get at "American films set in" and "French films set in" etc.) and putting this category, along with its parent category Category:American films set in the United States into the new container Category:Films set in the United States by country of production. This would create an opportunity to better categorize the over 450 articles in the category currently called Category:Foreign films set in the United States and would create more consistency with the various "X films set in New York City" categories. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 11:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming Category:Foreign films set in the United States requires a separate discussion, it is a different issue, but I agree that "foreign" too much a matter of POV. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a better name for Category:Foreign films set in the United States could be Category:Non-American films set in the United States, but yes, it's a different issue. The primary issue here is that categories such as Category:American films set in New York City (or Category:American films set in the United States, for that matter) are pointless. snapsnap ^(talk) 22:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With a parent category like Category:Films set in the United States by country of production, I don't think categories like Category:American films set in New York City or Category:American films set in the United States would be pointless. It seems like an U. S.-centric point of view to assume that a movie set in the United States would, with no other information, by be default be an American movie. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "U.S.-centric point of view", it's common sense. American films set in New York City (or any other American city) aren't nearly as uncommon as non-American films set in NYC or the US, hence why I don't see categories like Category:American films set in New York City, Category:American films set in the United States and the proposed Category:Films set in the United States by country of production as anything other than overcategorization and puffery. snapsnap ^(talk) 16:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With over 450 articles in what is currently Category:Foreign films set in the United States, I'm struggling to see why organizing films further by country of productive would be overcategorization; the category seems a little under-organized right now. How it would be puffery is beyond me. Lots of categories are containerized and subcategorized by nation/nationality. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. The focus of this particular discussion is Category:American films set in New York City, not Category:Foreign films set in the United States. This isn't merely about subcategorization by country. The issue here, specifically, is how Category:American films set in New York City is pointless and completely unnecessary, considering that it's safe to assume that the vast majority of films set in New York City are American. Bottom line: subcategorizing American films by American city is nothing but overcategorization. snapsnap ^(talk) 19:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. This is similar to Category:French films set in Paris which we also do not have. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as nominated. Films being set in the country within which they are produced is not defining. I particularly agree with Marcocapelle's point about how French films set in Paris is not France-centric. I appreciate fighting US-centrism, but this is not an instance of it. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 20:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have added the parent category to the nom, as it would become empty. – Fayenatic London 14:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, trivial intersection by unrelated characteristics. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NBA championship–winning players from outside the United States

Propose merging Category:NBA championship–winning players from outside the United States to Category:NBA championship–winning players

Nominator's rationale: Merge to parent category. This is pretty much a recreation of what was merged in this previous Cfd. I don't see how this is different except that the previously deleted categories have been made into one big one - no need to make a distinction between where a championship-winning player was born for a category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. We do not need child categories for this category. Just use the parent category. Rikster2 (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. SportsGuy789 (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Noon Universe novels

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

Propose renaming Category:Noon Universe novels to Category:Noon Universe

Nominator's rationale: "novels" creates unnecessary restriction and is not involved in categorization. I want to add some times (films, etc) but I dont want to create a supercategory for a rather narrow category. --Altenmann >talk 08:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @Altenmann: you are mistaken re novels: this is a subcat of Category:Novels by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky. I think you should go ahead and make a new parent instead. – Fayenatic London 11:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. Withdrawing. Actually there is more to the issue. --Altenmann >talk 06:45, 22 December 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:WikiProject on open proxies

Propose renaming Category:WikiProject on open proxies to Category:WikiProject Open proxies

Nominator's rationale: Since the WikiProject has been renamed, it makes sense to rename the category too. Nobody (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Languages attested

Propose merging Category: Constructed languages introduced in the 1580s to Category:Constructed languages, Category:Languages attested from the 16th century and Category:1580s introductions
Propose merging Category: Languages attested from 1585 to Category:Languages attested from the 16th century and Category:1585 introductions

Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated single-article categories, unhelpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient Roman Catholic saints

Propose deleting Category:Ancient Roman Catholic saints (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, we do not categorize pre-Schism saints by denomination. All articles are already in Category:3rd-century Christian saints etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Agreed, even if canonisation may have taken place long post-Schism. It is the same reason why I chose Category:Christian saints from Kievan Rus' (9th to 13th century), but we agreed to go for Category:Eastern Orthodox saints from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (16th to 18th century). Still not sure how this going to pan out in the end, but our recent changes do address some of the worst anachronisms. NLeeuw (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia oversighters

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia oversighters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia checkusers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is redundant to Special:Users, which is automatically maintained and is up to date at all times. The users involved were not asked nor did they consent to being placed in this category, and some of the pages that have been included do not fit into the category (e.g., User:Deskana/Userboxes/oversight since). Deskana has not been an oversighter for many years, and their name should not be included in this category, even peripherally. The category is not maintained, and it is poor use of editor time to maintain a redundant category. Risker (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This category was created before the Single User Login (SUL) conversion, and may have made sense at the time, but has now been supplanted by Special:Users. Risker (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Combined the 2 nominations. Courtesy ping to Risker. - jc37 20:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per nom. It contains editors who are not oversighters (e.g. Deskana) and doesn't contain some editors who are (e.g. me). Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This category is filled by at least top icons and likely also user boxes. Errors of incorrect inclusion should be corrected instead of used as examples IMO.... Izno (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If these are deleted per redundancy with Special:Users, I think that there should be a follow-up nom (or add to this one) of most of the cats in Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia user access level, except maybe Stewards and the global ones, since they are off-wiki. - jc37 20:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Won't disagree with you, Jc37. I just focused on the two that were most obviously useless. Should consensus be that they are deleted, then it clears the way for similar actions relating to other parallel categories. Risker (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. And these go against a fundamental long-standing convention of user categories at CFD: "We should never (even unintentionally) mis-categorize Wikipedians". - jc37 20:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a danger of overreacting here. The logical outcome of that absolutist and fundamentalist approach would be to remove user categories from all user boxes and topicons, in case they become out of date. I prefer Izno's approach, that such user templates should be removed when no longer appropriate. If admins are still given {{administrator}} when appointed,[7] then updating categorisation in this way could be standard practice for some other user access levels. – Fayenatic London 11:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fayenatic london, why do we want categories that are knowingly and deliberately incomplete? It is completely inappropriate to add topicons, userboxes, or categories to anyone's userpage. (It's okay to remove the topicons and categories when they no longer apply, but userboxes? That's getting pretty much into the weeds there.) But right now, these are unmaintained categories that have been supplanted by the up-to-date and correct Special:Users and are essentially useless. Nobody who's trying to find a checkuser or oversighter should be checking the category; they need to be directed to the places where there's a proper, current list of holders of those permissions. Risker (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why do we want categories that are knowingly and deliberately incomplete We give wide latitude to users to decide how they wish to appear in categories. That extends even to user groups, and largely always has. We have complementary categories for every user right, and I'm really struggling to see what the harm is in an incomplete list. (And have already ceded that these should be removed from the pages where they are no longer appropriate.)

This seems to be a WP:CLN type problem to me. Different people have different ways of navigating, and we have different ways of organizing information with each type. And on top of that, different scripts which add supplementary information in different locations. The categories are helpful in this anyway because they already expose the more complete list, and give people who are familiar with categories a place to go when they're looking at a specific user page. Or coming from the other direction, down from "Wikipedia user groups", from which they may have navigated elsewise. Izno (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Risker: why do we want mouldy fish for Christmas? I expressed no opinion on the two nominated categories. I'm just concerned about the direction of travel of the "absolutely" and "fundamental" comments by Jc37, which inter alia would terminate the use of the usercategory parameter in user boxes, because they miscategorise Wikipedians (e.g inactive users as participants). Your last half-sentence is more sensible, so I have acted on it and added a link with instructions at Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia user access level. As for Cyberpower678's edit to my user page after RfA, I took no exception to it, and am surprised that you find it completely inappropriate. I assumed that it was standard practice, and that the topicon was populating Wikipedia administrators, but it appears that I was mistaken on both those counts; the category for administrators is incomplete with 662, and there are only 802 direct transclusions of the topicon,[8] compared to well over 800 admins per Special:Users. – Fayenatic London 17:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference here. "This user likes baseball" is reliant only on the user's preference. "This user is checkuser" can change without the user being involved (due to removal due to inactivity or whatever). So in the first case, if they go inactive, the userbox is still applicable. In the second, it's not.

And yes: "We should not miscategorize Wikipedians" has long been foundation to take into consideration at CfD. (Similar to, we should never miscategorize articles about people.) We should never merge Wikipedians into an inapplicable category, for example, merely to make the name "better" per a cfd discussion. So in those cases, we delete the cat and allow for Wikipedians to decide for themselves if they should belong to a category of a new name. We should not be deciding for them.

Anyway, in this case, it's simple: categories are about navigation. Having these is a disservice to those looking for a CU or OS editor. Add a link (with an explanation) to Special:Users, at the top of the parent cat, and call it good. - jc37 21:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments. Izno (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See, here's my issue. I don't want to have any categories. I do, however, like having the topicons. Unfortunately, the code for these categories seems to be completely dependent on the topicons. If the two were divorced, I'd be more or less happy. I just don't want to be forced into a category (and have categories cluttering my userpage) just because I have a topicon. The two should not be interdependent. Once upon a time, this sort of made sense. It stopped making sense by the time SUL was complete and the Special:Users page became easily sortable for all types of user groups. If people want to be in the category, they should be free to put themselves in the category; however, it's not reasonable to force people into the category because they have appropriate topicons. Risker (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monuments and memorials to Queen Elizabeth II

Propose renaming Category:Monuments and memorials to Queen Elizabeth II to Category:Monuments and memorials to Elizabeth II

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CATNAME, which clearly states that standard naming conventions used for articles also apply to categories. As a result, this category needs to be made consistent with dozens of other categories on Elizabeth II, including Category:Elizabeth II, Category:Coronation of Elizabeth II, Category:Cultural depictions of Elizabeth II, etc. The guidelines and the consensus discourage the use of prefixes "King", "Queen", etc. before a sovereign's regnal name (per WP:SOVEREIGN and various discussions from June 2018, May 2019 (1), May 2019 (2), etc.). Keivan.f^Talk 03:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, it seems like it could have been listed at speedy because of WP:C2D and WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename --Altenmann >talk 09:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per direct link to the category's topic article. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Belarusian saints

Propose downmerging Category:Belarusian saints to Category:Eastern Orthodox saints from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth

Nominator's rationale: Downmerge redundant layer after recent renaming and merger. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 9#Category:Eastern Orthodox saints from Belarus. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual#Other. Pinging @HouseBlaster: here we go. NLeeuw (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, NL! Support per nom. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Downmerge (basically delete) per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Eliminate anachronism. --Altenmann >talk 09:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no content to be merged down into the subcat. The only question is whether the subcat Category:Eastern Orthodox saints from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth should be within Category:Belarusian Christians. If not, then just delete. Note that downmerges should not be fed to the usual CFD bot, as this puts categories within themselves, and the parenting then needs to be fixed manually. – Fayenatic London 10:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, you're right. I don't think these should be in Category:Belarusian Christians (which at most should be limited to post-1918 people from the territory of Belarus, and nowhere else from the PLC). Therefore, outright deletion is the better solution in this case. NLeeuw (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Military families by nationality

Propose renaming Category:Military families of the United States to Category:American military families

Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Salvadoran families and other subcategories of category:Business families by country. Moved from Speedy after objection. Mike Selinker (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Selinker: Wouldn't C2C dictate that the categories above should stay xyz families by Country, instead of switching to Country xyz families? Hey man im josh (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just following up about this @Mike Selinker. To be clear though, my objection/question starts from military families onwards. I don't have an opinion on the other family nominations above that. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that the precedent is in the "[Nationality] families" scheme. But I could see it going either way.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A looooot of these categories are inappropriate intersections between the people by country and people by nationality tree. I think we first need to decide in which of these two trees we want the business families and military families to be in, because it cannot be both. Country is probably more important than nationality: business people can have nationality A while running well-known businesses in country B, and soldiers with nationality A can serve as mercenaries for country B. The country you serve, or the country you operate your business in, is probably more WP:DEFINING for you as a person or family, or that society you work in/for, than the flag in your passport. NLeeuw (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The suggested renaming obfuscates the fact that the categorization should be by nationality, not by ethnicity. Categorization by ethnicity should be for things inherently cultural/antropological. --Altenmann >talk 09:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be by nationality either, but by country (see my comment above). NLeeuw (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transport in Balutola

Propose deleting Category:Transport in Balutola (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Single-entry category for one thing in a small village, with the added bonus that the thing isn't even in that village, it's in a larger place near the village. But we categorize things for the places that they're in, not the places that the places they're in are near, so this isn't warranted at all. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Altenmann >talk 08:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 19

Category:¡Uno! ¡Dos! ¡Tré!

Propose deleting Category:¡Uno! ¡Dos! ¡Tré! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme to categorize songs from a series of albums by that series. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct indoor ice hockey venues in the United States

Propose renaming Category:Defunct indoor ice hockey venues in the United States to Category:Defunct ice hockey venues in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Back in March, we merged a big batch of indoor ice hockey venues categories but I forgot to tag their defunct siblings. To restate, "The overwhelming number of venues defined by being a venue for ice hockey are indoors so this distinction is unnecessary. While outdoor stadiums are occasionally used as venues, they are not defined by hosting an occasional ice hockey event." User:Namiba 22:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Pichpich (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military saints

Propose deleting Category:Military saints (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Although it does have a main article called military saints, that, too, has its own problems. If this was really only about soldiers in the Roman Army during the persecution of Christians, especially the Diocletianic Persecution of AD 303–313., as the cat desc claims, plenty of people do not belong in this category. Alternatively, it could be renamed to something more specific or between brackets, but that would likely also depend on the main article being cleaned up. A second alternative might be WP:LISTIFY to Military saint#List, and demand WP:RS for every entry on that list per WP:LISTCRIT. But my overall preference is just to delete this as an arbitrarycat, and request a serious cleanup of military saint. Thoughts? NLeeuw (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This looks like WP:TNT situation. Listify, if wanted, per above. - jc37 20:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I also had a TNT feeling. This could be something valuable if someone started it over and did it right from the beginning. NLeeuw (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Russian military personnel of the war in Donbas

Propose renaming Category:Russian military personnel of the war in Donbas to Category:Pro-Russian military personnel of the war in Donbas

Nominator's rationale: This is a subcategory of Category:Pro-Russian people of the war in Donbas and has a subcategory Category:Pro-Russian military personnel killed in the war in Donbas. The War in Donbas involved Russian separatist forces in Ukraine who were not all part of the Russian military.

An alternative would be to change Category:Pro-Russian military personnel killed in the war in Donbas to Category:Russian military personnel killed in the war in Donbas as proposed as a speedy nomination.

Related speedy discussion

Category:Pro-Russian military personnel killed in the war in Donbas to Category:Russian military personnel killed in the war in Donbas – C2C: parent is Russian military personnel killed in the Russo-Ukrainian War ^SMason_Garrison 14:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Smasongarrison I would suggest a full discussion for both categories as the war in Donbas involved Pro-Russian military units rather than only Russian military units and the members of the category are almost all Pro-Russian Ukrainians. Category:Pro-Russian people of the war in Donbas is a parent of Category:Russian military personnel of the war in Donbas and a grandparent of Category:Pro-Russian military personnel killed in the war in Donbas. TSventon (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Why is Category:Pro-Russian people of the war in Donbas a parent of Category:Russian military personnel of the war in Donbas? Pro-russian is a cause not a nationality. ^SMason_Garrison 19:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Category:Russian military personnel of the war in Donbas contains Russians and Ukrainians so it is not really a nationality category. TSventon (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  If that's the case, then the category should either be renamed to Pro-Russian military personnel of the war in Donbas or purged to only include russian nationals. I personally don't care which way it goes, but the naming isn't consistent. Can you take it to full? ^SMason_Garrison 19:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TSventon (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just purge, for Ukrainian people we already have Category:Pro-Russian people of the war in Donbas. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle should this category only include Russian nationals? ^SMason_Garrison 18:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- After purging it will, and that is exactly what you would expect based om the title. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Song contest performer categories

Propose deleting Category:American Song Contest contestants
Propose deleting Category:Dansk Melodi Grand Prix contestants
~~Propose deleting Category:Dansk Melodi Grand Prix winners~~
Propose deleting Category:Eurovision Song Contest conductors
Propose deleting Category:Eurovision Song Contest entrants (and all subcategories)
~~Propose deleting Category:Eurovision Song Contest winners~~
Propose deleting Category:Eurovision Song Contest selection contestants (and all subcategories)
Propose deleting Category:Eurovision Young Musicians Finalists
Propose deleting Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest entrants (and all subcategories)
Propose deleting Category:Melodi Grand Prix composers
Propose deleting Category:Melodi Grand Prix contestants
~~Propose deleting Category:Melodi Grand Prix winners~~
Propose deleting Category:Melodifestivalen contestants (and all subcategories)
~~Propose deleting Category:Melodifestivalen winners~~
Propose deleting Category:Participants in the Bundesvision Song Contest
Propose deleting Category:Turkvision Song Contest entrants
~~Propose deleting Category:Turkvision Song Contest winners~~
~~Propose deleting Category:Winners of Eurovision Young Musicians~~
Propose deleting Category:You're a Star contestants

Nominator's rationale: Violation of WP:PERFCAT, specifically "Performers by production or performance venue". Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, but the subcategories should be nominated and tagged too. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, I oppose deletion of parent categories of which the subcategories aren't nominated (procedural oppose). Marcocapelle (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now nominated the sub-categories for CfD in a separate nomination: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 21#ESC/JESC entrant categories. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then it would be recommendable to close the discussions simultaneously. As said, in principle I support deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query Sims2aholic8, isn't the relevant policy for the winners WP:OCAWARD, which asks whether receiving the award is a #DEFINING characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients. I would say that a performer winning the Eurovision Song Contest is defining, I don't know about the others. TSventon (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: That is a good point; I do think some of the contests listed above would not pass this criteria, but others would. With that in mind I am withdrawing the CfD nomination for these categories in particular, and will renominate separately if I believe a WP:OCAWARD does apply. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft oppose I do not think WP:PERFCAT applies. "Performers by production" is Avoid categorizing performers by an appearance at an event or other performance venue. These are competitions, however, not just performances. That is to say, if some singer other than a contestant performed at Eurovision 1992, e.g. during a break or opening ceremony, that is WP:NONDEF. But the contestants themselves are central to the competition. "Performers by venue" is like Comedians who once upon a time told a joke in the Three Rivers Stadium, while "Performers by appearance" is Comedians who once upon a time told a joke during half-time. It's WP:NONDEF to link a performer to a location, or to a brief appearance during an event in which they played no central role. But none of the nominated categories even mention the venue by name (because it is irrelevant), so I do not understand the rationale. NLeeuw (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw: I understand where you're coming from on this, however I think that ESC, JESC, and all the other contests listed above, are all essentially TV productions. From the policy I linked to, "[t]his also includes categorization by performance [...] in any specific radio, television, film, or theatrical production" I believe applies to these categories. I included the full title of the relevant section for total clarity, however just to reiterate I believe these categories fall under the "production" element of this sub-section, and that the "venue" element doesn't apply here. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I do not agree (yet), but I can see where you are taking that argument. However, the "venue" part in your rationale still does not appear to apply in this case (Edit: Ah, we appear to agree on that). NLeeuw (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you say that a sports competition, like a baseball match, automatically becomes a "production" if it is televised? The sportspeople are "performing", in a way, to entertain the audience. The people watching at home may easily outnumber those in the stadium, depending on how high-level the match is, so the televised "version" of the match might have a much larger overall social impact than for the attendees observing it with their own senses. If it does count as a "production", I'm concerned that this might establish a far-reaching, unintended precedent. NLeeuw (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point, however it is not simply because these contests are televised that I believe they are television productions. They only exist because they are organised by national broadcasters. In the specific example of the Eurovision Song Contest, the main organiser is the European Broadcasting Union, a union of public-service broadcasters across Europe, Africa and Asia, and only EBU member broadcasters can participate; as an artist you can't simply "enter" the contest, you have to be chosen by a country's broadcaster as its entrant. The same can be said for Junior Eurovision and Young Musicians, which are also EBU events, while the other contests listed here are also organised by broadcasters or broadcasting unions. This is why I believe for these contests and these categories in particular there is an WP:PERFCAT violation. Of course I understand the hesitancy when it comes to an unintended precedent to this decision, so I'd also like to understand where you think this might lead to. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's obvious, isn't it? We are facing deletion of hundreds of categories relating to participants or winners of any kinds of competitions that were ever televised or put on radio or livestreamed on the Internet or otherwise broadcast, even if the competition could be held and observed by an audience without being broadcast at all (such as that baseball match). Similarly, Eurovision could be held as a competition without being broadcast (just as the earliest Olympics were not); it just emerged in a time when television was emerging as a broadcasting medium. So I'm not sure how WP:DEFINING the "production" part of it really is, and whether it should take precedence over the competition part for categorisation purposes. That said, I can follow a lot of your arguments, and I'm actually getting kind of sad that at some point we'll have to choose between your arguments and mine. ;) NLeeuw (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I don't see how this is any different than people participating in a game show. Whether on screen or on stage, it's entertainment that is a performance event. Even if the "contestants/participants" categories are kept, the 2 conductors and composers cats are clearly examples of performers by performance. - jc37 20:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the conductors and composers cats are evidently ready for deletion. The others I am not yet persuaded by. NLeeuw (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Eurovision Song Contest entrants (and all subcategories) and Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest entrants (and all subcategories). These are defining events in their careers for sure.
As for the other "contestants" categories, I'm not sure. Some, like Melodifestivalen, can actually "define destinies". --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing some of you probably are Americans, and you don't understand how important Eurovision is. Every entrant gets their part of the fame, you don't have to win to become famous. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A person's "fame" has nothing to do with whether an article is categorized or not. - jc37 01:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Moscow Connection: Can you please explain why you believe these categories are an exception to WP:PERFCAT? Notability is not the main crux for my request for delete, it is what I believe to be an overcategorisation issue. I am not suggesting removing the artists' articles from Wikipedia, or questioning their notability or "fame"; I'm just talking about whether we need these categories, given that we have guidelines that explicitly state [a]void categorizing performers by an appearance at an event, which ESC, JESC and the other contests listed would fall under. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I think one's participation in the contests is a defining characteristic. The peak of most people's careers. (That's especially true for kids, who take part in the JESC, and then they are notable only in their own countries, their "international career" is over.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally use these categories to find singer articles cause their participation in the European song contests is the only thing I remember about most people. To me, most ESC and JESC contestants are like one-hit wonders, they are known only for being in the JESC/ESC. . --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American film industry accountants

Propose merging Category:American film industry accountants to Category:American accountants

Nominator's rationale: Narrow underpopulated category ^SMason_Garrison 13:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle but probably dual merge also to Category:American film people. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me ^SMason_Garrison 05:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Online poker players

Propose deleting Category:Online poker players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Recently created, orphan category, that does not need to be split from potential parent category. UtherSRG (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Poker players. Poker players that don't play poker online are a rare breed, so the subcategory is not needed and is not defining. Pichpich (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge and redirect to prevent the creation in the future ^SMason_Garrison 18:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writing systems

Propose merging Category: Writing systems introduced in 1036 to Category:Writing systems introduced in the 11th century and Category:1036 introductions
Propose merging Category: Writing systems introduced in 1551 to Category:Writing systems introduced in the 16th century and Category:1551 introductions
Propose merging Category: Writing systems introduced in the 1650s to Category:Writing systems introduced in the 17th century and Category:1650s introductions
Propose merging Category: Writing systems introduced in 1712 to Category:Writing systems introduced in the 18th century and Category:1712 introductions
Propose merging Category: Writing systems introduced in 1768 to Category:Writing systems introduced in the 18th century and Category:1768 introductions

Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated single-article categories, unhelpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. While we're at it, I don't think it makes sense to keep Category:Writing systems introduced in the 1030s and similar categories until the 18th-century. Pichpich (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and follow-up by deleting the whole Category:Writing systems by date of introduction tree as WP:NONDEF. I'm taking the observations of nom and Pichpich to their logical conclusion, namely that these categories do no aid navigation at all, and the time of introduction is just very non-defining for writing systems, if we are able to date them at all. The whole challenge of any sort of historical research is that most sources ever created in the past have been destroyed throughout the centuries. And so we'll never have anything like complete evidence where something like a writing system came from and when it was first used and by whom and why and how and whether that was really unique, or just kinda like what already existed but under another name, in another place or slightly but not radically modified. These are complicated questions to answer with the often scanty evidence available to us, and those questions should be discussed in full-blown, stand-alone articles. Categories like this cannot provide references to sources for a claim that, say, Aristarchian symbols were really introduced in the 2nd century BCE. I think it would take only 10 minutes to find at least 5 papers in journals arguing some other date. This stuff just isn't well-categorisable. Let's get rid of it all. NLeeuw (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Possibly fictional people from Europe

Propose renaming Category:Possibly fictional people from Europe to Category:European people whose existence is disputed

Nominator's rationale: parent is People whose existence is disputed. The current name is inconsistent. See conversation on the talk page for context from the creator: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category_talk:Possibly_fictional_people_from_Europe ^SMason_Garrison 04:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated: Add other country/continents as renames. I've added the relevant existing legendary child categories if they exist. ^SMason_Garrison 18:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split between Category:Legendary European people and Category:European people whose existence is disputed. For most of these people there is no dispute, they are commonly recognized as legendary. There is already a whole tree of Category:Legendary people too. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be in favor of that. ^SMason_Garrison 05:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle Should I nominate the rest of this tree? I think that renamed "European people whose existence is disputed" would be the parent of Category:Legendary European people, is that how you're envisioning the tree, as well? ^SMason_Garrison 05:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison: yes probably. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. I wanted to double check before I started tagging them.^SMason_Garrison 18:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle I've now tagged them all as proposed them as renames. Most of them already have a child legendary category, but I'll make the missing ones now.^SMason_Garrison 18:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also JPL has convinced himself that people whose existence is disputed should be removed from most other categories. I've spent a lot of time restoring his removals, but that interpretation is pretty unhelpful for navigation. ^SMason_Garrison 19:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think "whose existence is disputed" is generally better than "possibly fictional". I do not think we should conflate "legendary" with "never existing". It is the nature of legends to latch onto real events and people, so if "legendary" means "not real", then Lady Godiva needs to be removed from the category. Part of the problem, though, with "dispute" is that it leaves open how disputed. In some cases, the dispute may be more or less settled in favour of nonexistence. In others, it may be just be a noisy minority disputing a consensus. "Whose existence is disputed" would seem to apply to both. Srnec (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support in general, but in agreement with Marco and Srnec that not all legendary people are necessarily people whose existence is disputed. Sometimes the question of their existence is not even the point of the tales about them. Sometimes we've got separate pages for a historical person and then the legendary character that was later modelled on them (e.g. Igor Svyatoslavich and Prince Igor); the latter's "existence" is not disputed as such, it is historical fiction. NLeeuw (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rhythm and blues music awards

Propose renaming Category:Rhythm and blues music awards to Category:Rhythm and blues awards

Nominator's rationale: Perhaps this is speediable due to the naming of similar categories under Category:Rhythm and blues, but I'm taking the conservative route and taking this to CfD to discuss renaming the category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I am not against it, but I would have opposed a speedy oppose for a procedural reason, there is too much a mix of formats in the tree of Category:Music awards by genre. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad I took to full discussion then. As opposed to the ambiguity of pop and rock, rhythm and blues is still music without "music" as a suffix. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 09:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional monasteries

Propose deleting Category:Fictional monasteries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is only one proper article in here. It is unlikely to be flooded with enough articles to justify a category (and flooding it with redirects would be bad form and duplicate the organization at Category:Monasteries_in_fiction). Jontesta (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, but merge to parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Discworld peoples

Propose merging Category:Discworld peoples to Category:Discworld characters

Nominator's rationale: There is only one article in this category, and it's questionably notable. There is a low chance of this being flooded with enough articles to justify the need for it (and flooding it with redirects would be bad form). Jontesta (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, but alt merge to Category:Discworld, a species is not a character. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Marcopalle here on alt merge. This category comes from literally the first flush of categorizations (in the first day or after the system was turned on), before the system settled down. Until relatively recently Dwarf (Discworld) was a standalone article within here too but that's now been moved to Discworld_(world)#Sentient_species. I think that there's probably enough source material that could one day be concievably split out once again, but cross that bridge if we come to it, eh? Morwen (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 18

Category:17th-century Armenian people by occupation

Propose merging Category:17th-century Armenian people by occupation to Category:17th-century Armenian people

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This is a redundant category layer. ^SMason_Garrison 23:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dune (franchise) families

Propose deleting Category:Dune (franchise) families (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There are no actual articles for this category, and a low chance that a flood of real articles could ever be made. It's also bad form to flood this category with redirects, which are already included at Category:Dune (franchise) element redirects to lists. Jontesta (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Biography articles without living parameter

Propose merging Category:Biography articles without living parameter to Category:Biography articles without blp parameter

Nominator's rationale: The living parameter of {{WikiProject Biography}} has been merged with the blp parameter in {{WikiProject banner shell}}, so the title of this category is no longer accurate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:17th-century Lithuanian philosophers

Propose splitting Category:17th-century Lithuanian philosophers to Category:Lithuanian philosophers and Category:17th-century Lithuanian writers

Nominator's rationale: Isolated category. Upmerge for now. ^SMason_Garrison 21:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle but considering his works the subject of the article rather belongs in Category:Lithuanian theologians and, indeed, in Category:17th-century Lithuanian writers. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Birdwatching sites in Poland

Propose merging Category:Birdwatching sites in Poland to Category:Birds of Poland

Nominator's rationale: Redudant category layer ^SMason_Garrison 20:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Analog Drum Machine

Propose renaming Category:Analog Drum Machine to Category:Analog drum machines

Nominator's rationale: I don't work with categories much, so I have no opinion about whether this category is needed at all. However, if we're going to keep it, it should be renamed "Analog drum machines" (sentence case, plural) for consistency with category names per WP:CATNAME. Popcornfud (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or else rename per nom), the fact that they are analog isn't significant. The articles are already in Category:Drum machines so no need to merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coats of arms of families of Poland

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) ^SMason_Garrison 20:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Coats of arms of families of Poland to Category:Polish coats of arms

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories ^SMason_Garrison 19:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I figured out how these are different. This category was just underpopulated. ^SMason_Garrison 20:57, 18 December 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.

Films with screenplays by

Propose deleting Category:Films with screenplays by David Golden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Films with screenplays by Katell Guillou (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Films with screenplays by Mario Celaya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Films with screenplays by Barbara Białowąs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per past consensus, a filmmaker has to have a biographical article about them before getting a category to batch their films under. None of these categories have corresponding articles and all consist of only one or two films. An effort was make to broaden the categories by searching for other works by these filmmakers, and none were found. Vegantics (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It might have been different when a category would have e.g. five articles but that is not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suicides by occupation

Propose deleting Category:Suicides by occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Everything in this category and its subcategories are trivial intersections. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, these are not trivial intersections. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which aren’t? How are they any different from model or sportspeople suicides? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose this intersection would only ever be trivial if there couldn't possibly be a correlation between the two separate categories or any interest in a list of people who are part of the two categories. Of course this isn't the case here. Here are just three of thousands of sources that deal with the correlation between occupation and suicides: [9], [10], [11]. PetScan isn't by a long shot user-friendly and widespread enough that category overlaps should be abolished. Rkieferbaum (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are trivial intersections for our purposes. Is there any individual category you think to be defining? I would have nominated them individually but they all appear to be non defining. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This category is helpful for navigation. ^SMason_Garrison 19:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison Navigation between categories that are non-defining. Which categories here do you think are defining? If there’s an argument that some are I can just nominate the others. But everything here the tie between these things seems wholly tangential. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For further explanation, categories that go along the lines of “people murdered for [their occupation]” are defining and not trivial - but that is not what is here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Until those child categories don't exist, I see no reason to delete this category. I had nominated several categories to discuss on their merits. I think your nomination here is premature. ^SMason_Garrison 20:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Every single category in the category seems just as non-defining as the others on their merits. Even if nothing comes out of it is productive to have a conversation about what is here and the general principle underlying them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't nominate those categories, you only nominated the container category. ^SMason_Garrison 21:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison I was going to tag the subcategories later since that would take a bit.

I want consistency more than anything - my issue is that the individual categories within this have been repeatedly deleted and recreated due to CfD discussions, all included within it are dubiously defining. I do not care if this category exists or not, but within it I want consistency. This category existing encourages trivial cross categorizations - but are they trivial?

If there is some place we can discuss whether murder or suicide as an intersection with career is a valid cross categorizations, I can close this and we can have the discussion there, but I don’t know where we would bring this up! PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have an issue with the general goal you’re trying to achieve, but I think a different approach would have been better. For example, starting with an RfC to gather community input could have been helpful. Starting a conversation on the talk page after looking through the several failed attempts that have come before might have also helped. You could have waited to get a sense of the broader community’s stance on these categories and to see how nominations for the several below played out.

By starting with the nomination of the container category, you’ve inadvertently created a situation where those who want to retain even a single category are now united in opposition. A more incremental approach -- addressing individual categories first -- could have allowed for more productive discussions and gradual consensus-building. This way, you could have chipped away at the issue without alienating contributors who might otherwise support some of your proposals. ^SMason_Garrison 21:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison I apologize, I do not usually do CfDs, I admit fully this was not the ideal way to do this. I was looking at the murdered sportspeople category because I was writing an article on a murdered sportsperson and I thought that would be a useful category. Only to discover that the consensus was it be deleted several years ago, but it had been recreated without discussion. And then I looked at related categories and discovered the problem in question extends to several. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the person below in that, I think the reverse is actually more ideal because I think these categories are either all defining or not at all. They all have the same problem. Half the keep votes in the individual CfDs are "there are other categories like this so this is part of that set" (which I sympathize with since they all seem about the same amount of defining). I don't know where I would put an RfC like this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An RFD might work on the category talk page or posting the question on the Categories for discussion talk page. ^SMason_Garrison 03:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, these are non trivial and useful for navigation and as subcategories. Nayyn (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nayyn How are they non-trivial? Consensus in past CfDs was to delete these. What changed? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed nomination, we should instead discuss the subcategories, one by one. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get why you and others say this, but I beg to differ. This is actually the central discussion of all this. It's pointless to argue which specific occupations merit having a "suicides by occupation" category. You could oppose adding a certain article to that category (say, someone worked as a cashier for a few months before becoming a successful musician - they definitely shouldn't be categorized as "cashiers who committed suicide"). But if enough notable people of a certain occupation have committed suicide, then it makes sense to have one such category. We're not a panel of experts to judge whether there's correlation between one's occupation and their suicide, so I don't think there's any point in discussing whether the correlation between the two is trivial or meaningful. The one discussion that makes sense in all of this is whether an intersection between professional occupations and people who committed suicide should be categorized or not. So, yes, a "by occupation" cat should exist if there are enough subcats to fill it, but the whole point of the discussion lies on whether it deals with "trivial intersections" or not. It's pointless to have that discussion over each individual occupation. Rkieferbaum (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not agree, it can't be ruled out that intersections with certain occupations are of encyclopedic relevance. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aarne-Thompson Grouping

Propose renaming Category:Aarne-Thompson Grouping to Category:Aarne-Thompson grouping

Nominator's rationale: not a proper name. --Altenmann >talk 17:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created this, and have no view either way on the proposal. I can see the logic. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this could be speedied under WP:C2A – "Correction of spelling errors and capitalization fixes." --Northernhenge (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People pardoned by John Adams

Propose merging Category:People pardoned by John Adams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Recipients of American presidential pardons
Propose merging Category:People pardoned by James Buchanan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Recipients of American presidential pardons
Propose merging Category:People pardoned by Jimmy Carter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Recipients of American presidential pardons
Propose merging Category:People pardoned by Calvin Coolidge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Recipients of American presidential pardons
Propose merging Category:People pardoned by Ulysses S. Grant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Recipients of American presidential pardons
Propose merging Category:People pardoned by Benjamin Harrison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Recipients of American presidential pardons
Propose merging Category:People pardoned by Herbert Hoover (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Recipients of American presidential pardons
Propose merging Category:People pardoned by Andrew Jackson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Recipients of American presidential pardons
Propose merging Category:People pardoned by Lyndon B. Johnson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Recipients of American presidential pardons
Propose merging Category:People pardoned by William McKinley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Recipients of American presidential pardons
Propose merging Category:People pardoned by Richard Nixon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Recipients of American presidential pardons
Propose merging Category:People pardoned by James K. Polk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Recipients of American presidential pardons
Propose merging Category:People pardoned by Martin Van Buren (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Recipients of American presidential pardons
Propose merging Category:People pardoned by Woodrow Wilson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Recipients of American presidential pardons

Nominator's rationale: Each of the categories nominated has only one or two entries. _pbp 16:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I like it the way it is bc (1) it makes the parent cat of presidential pardons tidier and navigable, and (2) it makes the presidents' cats more informative bc pardons is one of their constitutionally defined duties/privileges (along w naming judges etc). But whatever the community wants is cool, no big deal either way. jengod (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, easier navigation between articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Jengod points out, having these categories keeps the parent category tidier. It also creates more consistency in how the category is organized. I think Category:Recipients of American presidential pardons should be a container category with the exception of non-biography articles like National Thanksgiving Turkey Presentation and Pardons for ex-Confederates. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all (Listify, if wanted) - There are many acts and executive orders that a president does while performing their duties in office. See also: Powers of the president of the United States. A list would better handle this information, if anything. See List of people pardoned by George W. Bush, for example. - jc37 16:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I voted merge earlier but deletion is also a fair possibility. People in these categories do not really have something in common, except they were just lucky. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is pretty much WP:ASSOC, but instead of "hired by", it's "pardoned by". - jc37 22:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose deletion. A presidential pardon is a significant enough thing that it is defining. I can see the argument for sorting it like this, but upmerging is ok. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pardoning someone is a political act and should be attached to the presidency. Merging these categories would separate the president from those they pardoned. Which president pardons someone is quite defining. For example, look at any article of a pardoned person. It immediately states which president pardoned them. For example, "Frederick Krafft|Krafft]] later was the only person convicted under this law to receive a full executive pardon from President Woodrow Wilson."--User:Namiba 15:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meigs family

Propose renaming Category:Meigs family to Category:?????

Nominator's rationale: Purge and possibly delete. A lot of the contents of this category seem to just share a common name rather than being closely related to Jonathan Meigs and Elizabeth Hamlin Meigs. ^SMason_Garrison 14:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read the articles and go through the references you they are the same family. There are many other family categories that are similar, not sure what the angle is here? Nayyn (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you go through the history of these individuals they are of the same family and the locations are named after members of the same family. There are many other similar family categories such as this. I'm not sure what the angle is to delete or rename? If the category is not prominent enough, then why not AdD all of the members of the family for which it relates. Nayyn (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My angel here is that this category includes everything with the word "Meigs" in it. ^SMason_Garrison 16:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not the case. This is not a container for everything with the name. I took the time to be mindful to include only those that are connected.

Oppose. Nayyn (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purge, Camp Meigs and others were not owned by the Meigs family. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Purge of the non-biography articles per WP:SEPARATE. (Not opposed to a rename if someone wants to propose another name.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pornographic actors who died by suicide

Propose deleting Category:Pornographic actors who died by suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between specific acting genre and cause of death. ^SMason_Garrison 14:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serves these purposes for Category:Suicides by occupation

If Sucides by occupation is a relevant category than these subcategories are too. @Smasongarrison what about deleting that parent category then?

Nayyn (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I think you would do well to make a case that this intersection is defining. ^SMason_Garrison 14:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, trivial intersection. Most sibling categories should go too. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and to me this here should be speedily closed. There's an ongoing proposed deletion of the category "Suicides by occupation". This proposal (and the rest of them below) is moot; if "Suicides by occupation" is deleted then of course all of these should be too; if it's not deleted, then there's no reason to single out specific occupations for deletion. Besides, this intersection is far from trivial: [12], [13] Rkieferbaum (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok -- so there is a lot to unpack -- so you think this category should be kept as defining if the parent category is also kept? But that if the parent category isn't kept, you think this should be deleted? Am I reading you correctly? ^SMason_Garrison 20:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, pretty much. It’s quite simple, really: either it makes sense to have “suicides by occupation” or it doesn’t. I believe firmly that it does because the correlation between the two isn’t frivolous (it’s not like we have “suicides by hair color” or any such nonsense). If it does, then the category granularity should be defined by whether there are enough articles to populate that category. There’s no reason to be curating which occupations should or should not be categorized (provided, as I said, that “suicides by occupation” is kept). Rkieferbaum (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your cites focus on mental health in pornographic actors, which isn't the same thing as a specific cause of death. ^SMason_Garrison 03:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know suicide is essentially a mental health issue, right? Besides, from one of the links: "Lynn said she has deep concerns for today's porn performers. '(...) the actors of today, we lose a lot of them, because there's a lot of suicides, for many different reasons.'" I could go on and on... the topic could arguably have its own article. The intersection is far from trivial. Rkieferbaum (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there was a well sourced article linking suicide and this profession, I would certainly reconsider. In my life I've heard the following cause suicide: listening to the wrong music, having an abortion, not having children, and not attending church. While I'm open to there being occupational hazzards, we also need to make sure we're not categorizing based on a moral panic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide and mental health are related, but your references aren't making a case that that's sufficient for defining. I just don't see enough academic coverage for an article on suicide of pornographic film actors. ^SMason_Garrison 19:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be WP:TRIVIALCAT, since the intersection is not defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Models who died by suicide

Propose deleting Category:Models who died by suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between cause of death and occupation ^SMason_Garrison 14:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serves these purposes for Category:Suicides by occupation

If Sucides by occupation is a relevant category than these subcategories are too. Nayyn (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But Suicides by occupation isn't for diffusion purposes. It's to keep the categories where the intersection between cause of death and occupation is defining. I strongly encourage you to make a substantive argument about why this specific category is defining. ^SMason_Garrison 16:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, trivial intersection. Most sibling categories should go too. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TRIVIALCAT; the intersection does not seem meaningful. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sportspeople who died by suicide

Propose deleting Category:Sportspeople who died by suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose deleting Category:Footballers who died by suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Jockeys who died by suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Rugby players who died by suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Cricketers who died by suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category (under a slightly less nice name) was deleted in 2021, along with its subcategories, and recreated this year without discussion. I do not think there is anything new to overcome the 2021 consensus that this is a trivial intersection. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is your feeling, then why not move to nominate all of the categories in Category:Suicides by occupation ?

If you do not consider these categories worthy then there should not be a container category for them. As there is a container category, it is natural that people who find these categories useful / meaningful will continue to create them. Nayyn (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The category is neutral, verifiable and defining. If you are unwilling to have a conversation about Category:Suicides by occupation then it does not constitute a trivial category. Nayyn (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This specific intersection is also non-defining. I've bundled the nomination, @Nayyn: @PARAKANYAA:^SMason_Garrison 14:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serves these purposes for Category:Suicides by occupation

If Sucides by occupation is a relevant category than these subcategories are too.

Nayyn (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otherstuffexists is not a good argument. You're better off demonstrating that this specific intersection is defining. Saying it's defining without explaining why isn't helpful/convincing. ^SMason_Garrison 16:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Putting it another way, what is the benefit to the site to removing this category? What harm does it cause to the site by existing? The discussion from 2021 considering it trivial was arbitrary and this is a living project. Nayyn (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again -- that's not how categorization works. Non-defining categories do not facilitate navigation and make it harder to find defining categories. Do you have any affirmative arguments that support keeping this category? I can't help you if you don't familiarize yourself with how CFD works. ^SMason_Garrison 04:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, trivial intersection. Most sibling categories should go too. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this is not a trivial intersection. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AHI-3000 could you please elaborate on why this isn't trivial? ^SMason_Garrison 20:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G4, recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. The trivial intersection issue remains. I could see it being meaningful for occupational issues with those that died from head injuries or the like, but this has no clear connection. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per G4. Their occupation is trivial to how they died and given consensus doesn't appear to have changed since this was last deleted, I'd back removal. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Murdered sportspeople

Propose deleting Category:Murdered sportspeople (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category was deleted in 2021, along with its subcategories, and recreated this year without discussion. I do not think there is anything new to overcome the 2021 consensus that this is a trivial intersection. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same here @PARAKANYAA if this category is not meaningful or worthy of wikipedia, you should nominate Category:Murder victims by occupation or else these sub-categories will continue to be populated.

Wikipedia has evolved since 2021 and if the reason to delete is simply because several years there was a conversation about it, the fact the categories are being created anew means they have utility on the site.

Suggest for deletion the parent categories if they are not meaningful to the site. Nayyn (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This specific intersection is non-defining. ^SMason_Garrison 14:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is "non-defining" then would it not apply to all in Category:Murder victims by occupation @Smasongarrison? Nayyn (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otherstuffexists is not a good argument. You're better off demonstrating that this intersection is defining. ^SMason_Garrison 14:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this is not a trivial intersection. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Public figures are often murdered because of their occupation so this is a defining intersection.--User:Namiba 18:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“This category is not “people murdered for being athletes”. I don’t think that applies to any here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Namiba are you suggesting we narrow the category to people who were murdered because of their occupation? ^SMason_Garrison 20:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CATDEF, if someone is murdered because of their occupation, like Patrick Dennehy, Otávio Jordão da Silva, Andrés Escobar, or Bryan Pata, then it is a unquestionably a defining intersection. For others, it is non-defining but could be included. As CATDEF says "For non-defining characteristics, editors should use their judgment to choose which additional categories (if any) to include."--User:Namiba 20:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right now that category doesn't make the distinction for the motive -- which is why I asked if you supported narrowing the category. ^SMason_Garrison 21:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to change the name then? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm indifferent to changing the name. I can't think of a better name but if you can, propose it. However, I think this discussion would benefit from nominating all of the murdered occupation categories and not just sportspeople.--User:Namiba 15:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I tried to do that for the suicide categories people voted keep because I wasn’t nominating them one by one! There is no winning. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely challenging sometimes to know if a individuall evaluation makes sense versus a group nomination. Conceptually, it's when the change is the same versus unique, but editors here often honestly disagree on that point. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete/Open to Narrower Category per WP:G4, recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion and the trivial intersection issue remains. (If a more narrow category can be created for those murdered because they are sports stars, totally open to that since it would be defining.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NA-Class articles

Propose deleting Category:NA-Class articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The pages in this category and all its subcategories seem to be largely automatically and incorrectly tagged, and I doubt we need it (whether named "articles" or "pages"). Something like Talk:Lists of animated feature films is now automatically a NA-class article of high importance, when in reality it should be an unassessed class article of high importance. Something like Talk:"Bob" is automatically put into "NA-class" when it should be in "Redirect class". The whole NA-class tree seems to be a giant mistake with many tens of thousands of pages. Fram (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is just the result of template population weirdness. Some of the banners only populate one or the other (I think). It's not standardized. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but then these templates need updating, as they are categorizing incorrectly. Fram (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree. @MSGJ? PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we had some dodgy code for a few days, which should now be fixed. Talk:Lists of animated feature films is now correctly shown as a redirect, as is Talk:"Bob". If any project does not have a specific category for redirects, then it will fall back to NA-class. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptual Support This category doesn't make sense, not sure if us deleting the category means the templates would just create redlinks, which would not be desirable. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the category is a useful fall-back for any non-articles if the more specific category does not exist. It also means that assessment tables such as User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Africa "add up" correctly. Finally I would note that these categories are already undergoing a rename from "articles" to "pages", so it would be better to let the dust settle before opening a new nomination on them — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(From WT:COUNCIL) Keep: Some pages do not need to be classified into article classes, for example WP namespace pages, but their parent project may not use "Project" class as a valid class. In such situations, we would need a NA class to categorise them, otherwise the numbers would not add up. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 03:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Book leaks

Propose deleting Category:Book leaks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:NONDEF. There aren't any articles specifically about leaks in this category, unlike the parent category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom^SMason_Garrison 14:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NBA Cup–winning players

Propose renaming Category:NBA Cup–winning players to Category:NBA Cup-winning players

Nominator's rationale: Incorrect English. It should be Cup-winning. We would always use a hyphen for compound words, while an ndash is used to separate phrases. Plus even if it were separate phrases an ndash would require spaces on either side. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created this category and understand and completely agree with you. When I created the Category:NBA championship–winning players, I named it with a hyphen (-), as you correctly stated it should be. However, I noticed that the category NBA championship–winning head coaches uses an ndash (–), which isn't rare on Wikipedia; lots of other categories that should have a hyphen in their title instead have an ndash. When I saw this, I requested to change the name of the aforementioned category for players that have won the NBA Finals to have an ndash instead of a hyphen. My reasoning was to keep consistency with two very similar categories, and also categories that have quite a few people in common given how hard it seemingly would be to win an NBA championship as both a player and a head coach (seven people are in both categories: Bill Russell, Tom Heinsohn, K.C. Jones, Bill Sharman, Steve Kerr, Phil Jackson, and Pat Riley. I knew it was punctuantionally (is that a word?...haha probably not) incorrect, but I figured there may be some kind of naming convention on Wikipedia where all category titles use en dashes regardless of if it's correct or not, even though I couldn't find one when I looked. I am all for changing the title of this category, as well as the other two categories I have mentioned and any others I can find that have an ndash but should have a hyphen. BittersweetParadox (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why it didn't show up, but the categories I mentioned are "Category:NBA championship–winning players" (the category I created with a hyphen but then changed to an ndash), and "Category:NBA championship–winning head coaches" (the category I saw with an ndash and the reason I changed the one with players). BittersweetParadox (talk) 08:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-defining.--User:Namiba 15:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining. SportsGuy789 (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Re: the name, per MOS:SUFFIXDASH:
Instead of a hyphen, use an en dash when applying a prefix or suffix to a compound that itself includes a space, dash or hyphen
—Bagumba (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment back @Bagumba: - what does that have to do with the price of eggs? Cup isn't a prefix and winning isn't a suffix. This is basic standard English... hyphens for compounds and ndash as a separator. This isn't "ultra–cup-winning" where that rarity could happen. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The NBA Cup is what was won, so winning is the suffix, e.g. Category:Pulitzer Prize–winning newspapers. No comment if that's "standard English". —Bagumba (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That is an incorrect definition of suffix. Compound words with "winning" are not suffixes. In a word like smokeless, "less" is a suffix. Sadly has the suffix "ly". This is a simple compound word with two terms, neither of which are a prefix or suffix... "cup-winning." This should be "NBA Cup-winning players" or "NBA Cup – Winning players." If I turned in a paper with this syntax to be graded at the university, or perhaps an article I wrote for ESPN, it wouldn't go well for me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Whether or not suffix is the appropriate word (feel free to take it up at the MOS), using an ndash with winning here is consistent with the examples at MOS:SUFFIXDASH. But it's a moot point if this category ends up being deleted.—Bagumba (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Update Actually, I missed this part of MOS:SUFFIXDASH re: categories:
  However, the principle is not extended when compounding other words in category names, e.g., Category:Tennis-related lists and Category:Table tennis-related lists both use hyphens.
  —Bagumba (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I didn't see that either or I would have mentioned it. Good catch. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Come on, this is not defining. Will not show up in these players’ obituaries that’s for sure (at least at this point in the tournament’s history). I have questions if this should even make the players’ infobox. Rikster2 (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It doesn't seem important to fans right now because it is new, but if you watched any of the games and saw the extra effort the players put in, it's obvious it means a lot to them. It's a trophy and a real accomplishment. I know accomplishments aren't listed in soccer managers' infoboxes but they are definitely considered when evaluating a career. Just because the tournament is new does not mean it is irrelevant. BittersweetParadox (talk) 08:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should've mentioned this but the reason I brought up the soccer managers was to make a parallel to league cups in soccer (such as the F.A. Cup, or the Carabao Cup which is probably a better comparison) being comparable to the NBA Cup. Whoever has the most points at the end of the season wins the league, but the FA cup final is one of the biggest sporting events of the year throughout Europe, if not worldwide, and has nothing to do with league standings, just like the NBA Cup. I know the popularity aspect is not true of the NBA cup right now but that is the intention of the NBA and I do think it will get to that point eventually. Like you, I don't think it is as important as the NBA finals, but I do think it's an accomplishment that should be listed since it is one of two team trophies given out in the NBA, and it carries a lot of importance with the players and coaches. BittersweetParadox (talk) 08:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not at the level of league cups in soccer, not even close. If that becomes the case, the categories could easily be created then (WP:TOOSOON). What I saw was the Milwaukee Bucks players leaving their celebration Champagne untouched because they don’t see it as a real championship. Yes, they played hard for the $500k they each got for winning it. Rikster2 (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Audiovisual introductions

Propose merging Category: Audiovisual introductions in the 1st millennium BC to Category:1st-millennium BC introductions
Propose merging Category: Audiovisual introductions in the 15th century to Category:15th-century introductions
Propose merging Category: Audiovisual introductions in 1502 to Category:1502 introductions
Propose merging Category: Audiovisual introductions in 1746 to Category:1746 introductions
Propose merging Category: Audiovisual introductions in 1790 to Category:1790 introductions

Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated single-article categories, unhelpful for navigation. A second merge target isn't really necessary, two articles are already in Category:Precursors of film and for the other articles it is quite a stretch to say that they are about audiovisual technology. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish white nationalists

Propose deleting Category:Jewish white nationalists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I don't believe this is a defining characteristic. Searching for the term brings up the category and news articles about white nationalism and anti-semitism, not Jews who support white nationalism. There are BLP concerns too with the living people included in the category. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in principle, but what should be done about the child category Category:Neo-Nazis of Jewish descent ? ^SMason_Garrison 14:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have the same issue as not being a defining trait. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is the bizarre irony of being a Jewish Nazi "non-defining"? I think a category like that serves a very informative purpose. AHI-3000 (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because sources don't refer to it? We have a whole article on Jewish collaboration with Nazi Germany and references that discuss it. There does not appear to be that same interest and coverage for Jewish Neo-Nazis.

The first person I checked was only alleged to be Jewish and denied it himself, alongside others proclaiming he was 'Aryan' (and thus not a Jew). The other one was once again, an allegation sourced to Newsweek.

If it were defining you would expect better quality sources to discuss it. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 17

Category:Culture by genre

Propose deleting Category:Culture by genre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose manually merging Category:Paris culture by genre to Category:Culture of Paris

Nominator's rationale: single entry category. I also may have some questions regarding its only subcategory QuantumFoam66 (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And the subcat merged to Category:Culture of Paris or the subcat's subcats merged to its subcats, like Category:Arts in Paris. - jc37 00:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(expanding the nomination) Propose manually merging Category:Paris culture by genre to Category:Culture of Paris per Jc37. It largely duplicates Category:Arts in Paris. After this has been solved, parent Category:Culture by genre will be empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In order to do this using XfDcloser, it has to be placed at the head of the nomination. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support all per Marcocapelle. This does not reflect correct usage of the word genre. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Olaf II of Norway

Propose renaming Category:Olaf II of Norway to Category:Saint Olaf

Nominator's rationale: The corresponding article page was recently moved to Saint Olaf. Векочел (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per WP:C2D though I wonder if this is the common name among historians. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transport in Port Elizabeth

Propose renaming Category:Transport in Port Elizabeth to Category:Transport in Gqeberha

Nominator's rationale: To match with the parent category. GeographicAccountant (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, also per article title. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Metropolitan routes in Port Elizabeth

Propose renaming Category:Metropolitan routes in Port Elizabeth to Category:Metropolitan routes in Gqeberha

Nominator's rationale: To match with the parent category. GeographicAccountant (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, also per article title. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comics characters by series

Propose deleting Category:Comics characters by series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I think I was going to nominate this one a while ago but never did, anyway this category currently contains only one page. It could perhaps be populated but I probably won't due an already existing similar category that is Category:Comics characters by series QuantumFoam66 (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did try to find more categories that belongs to a series.. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but since we already have Category:Comics characters by series, I'm not sure you can allow this category to be kept. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/UpMerge (recat the subcat) to Category:Animated characters and Category:Comics characters. Noting that Category:Animated characters by series exists. However, the nominated cat only has one subcat as a member - Category:Anime and manga characters. So just UpMerge. - jc37 00:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jc37. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just delete I already added the appropriate parent category to Category:Anime and manga characters. There is nothing else to do here.
QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1st century BC in Judea

Propose deleting Category:1st century BC in Judea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:1st-century BC establishments in Judea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, isolated category with one subcategory only. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, category has now 4 entries. Fram (talk) 10:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It still is an isolated category and not a country as such. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very few entries in Category:1st century BC by country were "a country as such". Fram (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 17:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to 1st century BC in the Herodian kingdom, per Herodian kingdom, and comparable to the existing Category:1st century BC in the Hasmonean Kingdom. Per the article, Judea isn't a country, it's a region or province (depending on the era). Though I'll agree, putting "kingdoms" which are pretty much client states, under "country", is still a bit questionable. See also: Client kingdoms in ancient Rome. - jc37 00:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37: the Herodian kingdom is entirely within the 1st century BC so there wouldn't be any distinction between Category:Herodian kingdom and 1st century BC in the Herodian kingdom. Besides the article Siege of Jerusalem (63 BC) is not about the Herodian kingdom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main problem is more stemming from trying to put these in the "by country" tree. I'm looking at Category:Centuries by empire, and thinking that maybe these should instead be more part of that tree in some way. Maybe have a subcat of Category:1st century BC in the Roman Empire called: Category:1st century BC in provinces of the Roman Empire, to hold these cats? Then using "Judea" might work. I'm also wondering if there are more cats out there similarly mis-categorized as "countries". - jc37 15:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - May not have been "a country as such" but was still a recognized geographical area. Has been populated, is now valid. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Bigs video games

Propose deleting Category:The Bigs video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There were only two games, it falls short of the threshold for a typical category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, but presumably merge to Category:Major League Baseball video games. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 10 December 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, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Marcocapelle. - jc37 00:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Burton family

Propose renaming Category:Burton family to Category:?

Nominator's rationale: Ambiguously named category. This was intended for four related people involved in the sport of auto racing (two father-son pairs where the fathers are brothers), but within the past couple of days somebody tried to file several politicians named Burton (who were obviously related to each other, but not verifiably to the racers at all) in here, before noticing the problem and then replacing it with a non-existent redlinked Category:Burton family of California.
There may be a case that this should just be deleted as WP:OCASSOC -- OCAT doesn't completely ban "family relation" categories outright, but it does suggest that the bar for when one is warranted is considerably higher than just "a handful of family members have articles", and requires some evidence that the family routinely get discussed and covered collectively as a family in the sources -- but I wasn't prepared to formulate a deletion argument since I don't know enough about them to know whether that bar is passable here or not (though obviously I won't stand in the way if consensus does lean more in that direction). But at the very least, if it is kept it does need to be named more clearly and unambiguously due to the existence of other unrelated Burton families. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the articles are already directly interlinked. If kept, rename to e.g. Category:Burton motorsports family. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Marcocapelle. --wooden superman 14:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but add a WP:CAT#category description, clarifying intended membership. Per WP:CAAP, I think an article could be written about this family, so even though such article does not exist (yet), this seems to be a "keep". And we don't need to disambiguate, unless/until there are other cats to disambiguate with. - jc37 00:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If kept we should definitely disambiguate, there are plenty of different Burtons. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. My comments were intended to suggest that we should disambiguate (if necessary), but apparently, they were less-than clear on that. My apologies. Thanks again for the clarification. - jc37 23:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usage notes on categories don't tend to work all that well at keeping them clean of wrong entries — people routinely just add whatever categories they think applicable and walk away without actually reading the usage notes to see if they're doing it wrong, so even categories with usage notes still routinely have to be monitored and cleaned up for wrong usage. So if we want to keep the category, then it does need to be at a clear and unequivocal name, because a simple usage note won't accomplish jack spit. Bearcat (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not for the more "enthusiastic" editors, but I think adding cat descriptions still is effective for many if not most editors, and - more importantly - for our readers. - jc37 23:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to ~~Category:Burton family (auto racing)~~Category:Burton family (motorsport). Four articles is enough for a family cat, and as Bearcat points out, this does need dabbing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to disambiguate, we should probably use what's on other articles and categories (e.g. Category:Drifting (motorsport), Endurance racing (motorsport)). It looks like it's (motorsport). - jc37 23:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, updated, thnanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ice exoplanets

Propose deleting Category:Ice exoplanets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Purely speculative category with no clear inclusion criteria. None of these planets is known to have a solid icy surface. Some of them could have rocky surfaces, liquid water oceans at the surface, or be mini-Neptunes with no surface. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Are there any verifiable reliable sources for these? If not, then this is merely WP:OR, and should be deleted. - jc37 18:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eurovision commentators

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. G4 The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Eurovision commentators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT --wooden superman 11:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one, and its parent Category:Eurovision Song Contest people, and the rest of the parent's subcats, per WP:PERFCAT, as the nom noted. - jc37 00:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you on the conductors, but would the "people" category not be valid if it only includes the executives/organisers? And would it not be defining for the contestants? --wooden superman 08:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on the businesspeople. But the commentators cat seem to fall under WP:OC#Performers by production or performance venue to me. If a Master of ceremonies or a Sports commentator, is a performer, surely these are. As for the contestants cat, I look at Contestant, and see "participant in a contest". Well, if the "contest" in question is a form of entertainment, then all participants being viewed for entertainment purposes are "performers". - jc37 16:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that participating in a contest is slightly different from appearing on a television show about the contest. I mean, by all means nominate the contestants categories, but wouldn't want to lump them together with this nomination as the criteria would be different. --wooden superman 16:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right that "contestants" could use a separate nom. - jc37 16:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've just noticed this discussion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 8#Category:Eurovision Song Contest presenters. Is this not essentially the same thing? Can it be speedied in this case? --wooden superman 16:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G4, recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:01, 19 December 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:WikiProject Lanka Premier League participants

Propose deleting Category:WikiProject Lanka Premier League participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The project does not exist anymore. Gonnym (talk) 09:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, possibly merge to Category:WikiProject Cricket participants. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Asia cricket task force participants, per the project redirecting to: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Asia cricket task force. - jc37 00:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both Category:WikiProject Pakistan Super League participants and Category:WikiProject Lanka Premier League participants into Category:Asia cricket task force participants Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Windmills 1400-1800

Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1441 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1441 and Category:Windmills completed in the 15th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1551 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1551 and Category:Windmills completed in the 16th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1603 (2 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1603 and Category:Windmills completed in the 17th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1605 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1605 and Category:Windmills completed in the 17th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1622 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1622 and Category:Windmills completed in the 17th century

more categories nominated

Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1623 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1623 and Category:Windmills completed in the 17th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1627 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1627 and Category:Windmills completed in the 17th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1629 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1629 and Category:Windmills completed in the 17th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1631 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1631 and Category:Windmills completed in the 17th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1632 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1632 and Category:Windmills completed in the 17th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1644 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1644 and Category:Windmills completed in the 17th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1663 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1663 and Category:Windmills completed in the 17th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1665 (2 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1665 and Category:Windmills completed in the 17th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1674 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1674 and Category:Windmills completed in the 17th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1680 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1680 and Category:Windmills completed in the 17th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1681 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1681 and Category:Windmills completed in the 17th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1689 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1689 and Category:Windmills completed in the 17th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1692 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1692 and Category:Windmills completed in the 17th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1693 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1693 and Category:Windmills completed in the 17th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1696 (3 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1696 and Category:Windmills completed in the 17th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1704 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1704 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1711 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1711 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1716 (2 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1716 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1719 (2 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1719 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1724 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1724 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1730 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1730 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1732 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1732 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1742 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1742 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1743 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1743 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1744 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1744 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1749 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1749 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1750 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1750 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1751 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1751 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1755 (2 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1755 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1757 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1757 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1759 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1759 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1760 (2 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1760 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1765 (2 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1765 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1769 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1769 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1770 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1770 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1771 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1771 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1772 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1772 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1774 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1774 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1775 (2 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1775 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1776 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1776 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1779 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1779 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1780 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1780 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1781 (2 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1781 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1782 (3 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1782 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1783 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1783 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1785 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1785 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1787 (2 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1787 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1788 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1788 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1789 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1789 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1791 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1791 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1794 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1794 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1795 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1795 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1796 (2 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1796 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1797 (2 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1797 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1798 (1 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1798 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century
Propose merging Category:Windmills completed in 1800 (4 P) to Category: Buildings and structures completed in 1800 and Category:Windmills completed in the 18th century

Nominator's rationale: merge, up to 1800 these are mostly one-article categories, unhelpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These are helpful for navigation if you're going top down from Category:Windmills by year of completion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you're going top down then you'll have the century categories immediately as subcats in Category:Windmills. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except they will not be in subcats of Category:Windmills by year of completion. It's a full-established category tree, and traditionally those are acceptable to have one- or two-article categories, especially the latter. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Although my gut feeling was to keep, having so many categories with only one or two articles in seems overkill. In most cases, I don't see there being much impact from merging these categories as proposed. Gazamp (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female murder–suicides

Propose deleting Category:Female murder–suicides (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I'm usually of the opinion that in criminology, gender does tend to be a fairly discussed intersection, but this makes no sense. The murder-suicide categories are not strictly for the perpetrators of the events. Is a "female murder-suicide" supposed to be female perpetrators of murder suicides, or victims? By who is tagged here, this is clearly trying to be the perpetrators, but that's too ambiguous, and doesn't match up with the way any of the other murder-suicide categories are used. This is also a very specific intersection and one I am not sure is defining, unlike murderers generally. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / oppose deletion. This is very clearly supposed to be about women who commit murder-suicide. I'm not sure what your confusion is about? If Category:Female murderers and Category:Female suicides are defining on the basis of gender and cause of death, then why not when they happen simultaneously? Especially considering how rare it is for women to commit a murder-suicide, news of such events are notable enough to get articles, and thus a category to contain them. Especially for the subcategory Category:Female suicide bombers. AHI-3000 (talk) 09:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not very clear, the title is ambiguous. A female murder-suicide could just as easily be one where a woman is a victim. The murder-suicides category is applicable to articles on victims and event based articles as well.

It is not defining, there is no category tree for "murder-suicide perpetrators" which is what this is trying to be. The subcategory is fine because we already have the suicide bombers category tree. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick, what do you think about this? AHI-3000 (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it does not match with articles and sibling categories, which are about the events, rather than about individual people. Not surprisingly many entries in the category are redirects. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to cover only women who commit murder-suicide. No confusion there. Dimadick (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick In contradiction to every other category in this tree - every other one is for both perpetrators, events and victims. Why would the victims be excluded from the scope of this category, when it is not obvious by the name, and all other similarly named categories have a different scope? Why are we only tagging people and not events? We have no tree for murder-suicide perpetrators. When I read this, I thought it was for femicides. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You thought it was a duplicate category? Femicides are covered in Category:Femicide. Dimadick (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick A femicide is not always a murder suicide. I thought this was about femicide murder-suicides, which are discussed in literature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my fault you're confused about the scope of this, it's been made clear that this category is for individuals who committed both murder and suicide. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AHI-3000 Then the category should be renamed to reflect its scope, as “Female perpetrators of murder–suicides”, instead of masquerading as an event-based category when it’s really trying to be a person category. I still don’t think this is defining but it’s at least clear. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA: I'm fine with a renaming if that's what you really wanted in the first place. AHI-3000 (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA: Though "Female murder–suicide perpetrators" would be better and shorter than what you suggested. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AHI-3000 Yeah that’s better. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA: Do you prefer to have this category deleted or renamed? AHI-3000 (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AHI-3000 My issues with this category are twofold:

Misleading, in that its actual scope is not clearly indicated by its title. This would be solved with a renaming.
How defining is "Murder–suicide perpetrators" vs murderers? I feel that this existing as a "female" subcategory of...a category we do not have, is odd. Is "Murder–suicide perpetrators" itself a defining category? Or murder-suicide victims? If this is changed to that, I feel those categories would follow. It's not obviously trivial, but I am not sure how others would feel about it. The way we handle the murder-suicide categories is very odd in that we have victims, perpetrators and events all lumped together, but since it's such a broad category I have never known how to deal with it.

So a rename would be a major improvement over it being kept as is but the implications of this category concern me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA: Instead of just deletion, could you modify the proposal for the optional possibility of renaming it too? AHI-3000 (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hispanic empresses and queens

Propose renaming Category:Hispanic empresses and queens to Category:Empresses and queens of Hispania

Nominator's rationale: I think referring to them as "Hispanic" is likely to get confused/misunderstood as being someone who is Latino/Hispanic as an ethnicity rather than the leader of Hispania. ^SMason_Garrison 04:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete, Hispania was a Roman province rather than an independent monarchy. The content of the category is all post-Hispania. If not deleted, a better name would be Category:Queens in the Iberian Peninsula but there is no point in grouping queens of different countries together this way. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Rájec-Jestřebí

Propose merging Category:People from Rájec-Jestřebí to Category:People from Blansko District

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Head-to-head arcade video games

Propose deleting Category:Head-to-head arcade video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: per WP:NONDEF I looked through the articles to see that almost none of them use this rare term "Head-to-head". There is no page titled Head-to-head arcade game at the moment either and in turn this category is essentially just for any multiplayer arcade game; more specifically arcade-only games? Anyway, not defining. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see the point of such a category. Is a game defined by having a multiplayer mode? Dimadick (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A merge into both the multiplayer and arcade video games categories would be more helpful though, just not those exact categories, must be a subcategory of either one if already in the parent

QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Swedish politicians of Assyrian/Syriac descent

Propose renaming Category:Swedish politicians of Assyrian/Syriac descent to Category:Swedish politicians of Assyrian descent

Nominator's rationale: WP:Consistency across category names, similar to Swedish people of Assyrian descent Surayeproject3 (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Swedish people of Assyrian or Syriac descent

Propose renaming Category:Swedish people of Assyrian or Syriac descent to Category:Swedish people of Assyrian descent

Nominator's rationale: WP:Consistency across category names Surayeproject3 (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Martyrs of the Chinese Revolution

Propose deleting Category:Martyrs of the Chinese Revolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category name is not even close to NPOV. Amigao (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: This seems to be a more formalized term within Chinese-language writing. Wikipedia permits "martyr" as a categorization so long as it's recognized in reliable sources (eg Category:Christian martyrs, Category:Muslim martyrs) ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem is that the category fails WP:PRECISION. Which revolution are we talking about? For example, the Chinese Communist Revolution or the 1911 Revolution? - Amigao (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relatedly, parent category Category:Martyrs is itself a subcategory of Category:Victims of religious intolerance, which really doesn't apply here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of note, a somewhat similar discussion in the past for an "Iranian martyrs" category resulted in deletion. There is also a fair amount of WP:OVERLAPCAT with a category such as Category:Communists executed by the Republic of China. Amigao (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - "a subcategory of Category:Victims of religious intolerance" Seriously? The main article Martyr specifies that the term covers people who suffered "persecution and death for advocating, renouncing, or refusing to renounce or advocate, a religious belief or other cause" The article specifically covers political martyrs, people who faced persecution for their support of independence movements, support of unionism, support for communism, support for civil rights movements, and support of revolutions. It is POV to prioritize religious martyrs over political onesDimadick (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Striking my keep based on that precedent and redundancy with a more neutral existing alternative. Thanks for responding with such great evidence. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Religious martyrs are one thing. Political martyrs are much less clearly NPOV-definable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Bushranger. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sailing clubs of the United States

Propose renaming
- Category:Sailing clubs in Alabama to Category:Yacht clubs in Alabama (2/2 contents use "Yacht Club")
- Category:Sailing clubs in Colorado to Category:Yacht clubs in Colorado (1/1 contents use "Yacht Club")
- Category:Sailing clubs in Connecticut to Category:Yacht clubs in Connecticut (7/7 contents use "Yacht Club")
- Category:Sailing clubs in Florida to Category:Yacht clubs in Florida (7/9 contents use "Yacht Club")
- Category:Sailing clubs in Georgia (U.S. state) to Category:Yacht clubs in Georgia (U.S. state) (1/1 contents use "Yacht Club")
- Category:Sailing clubs in Illinois to Category:Yacht clubs in Illinois (3/3 contents use "Yacht Club")
- Category:Sailing clubs in Indiana to Category:Yacht clubs in Indiana (1/2 contents use "Yacht Club")
- Category:Sailing clubs in Louisiana to Category:Yacht clubs in Louisiana (2/2 contents use "Yacht Club")
- Category:Sailing clubs in Maine to Category:Yacht clubs in Maine (2/2 contents use "Yacht Club")
- Category:Sailing clubs in Maryland to Category:Yacht clubs in Maryland (0/2 contents use "Yacht Club")
- Category:Sailing clubs in Massachusetts to Category:Yacht clubs in Massachusetts (10/11 contents use "Yacht Club")
- Category:Sailing clubs in Michigan to Category:Yacht clubs in Michigan (7/8 contents use "Yacht Club")
- Category:Sailing clubs in Mississippi to Category:Yacht clubs in Mississippi (1/1 contents use "Yacht Club")
- Category:Sailing clubs in New Jersey to Category:Yacht clubs in New Jersey (3/3 contents use "Yacht Club")
- Category:Sailing clubs in New York (state) to Category:Yacht clubs in New York (state) (15/16 contents use "Yacht Club")
- Category:Sailing clubs in Ohio to Category:Yacht clubs in Ohio (3/4 contents use "Yacht Club")
- Category:Sailing clubs in Oregon to Category:Yacht clubs in Oregon (1/1 contents use "Yacht Club")
- Category:Sailing clubs in Pennsylvania to Category:Yacht clubs in Pennsylvania (2/2 contents use "Yacht Club")
- Category:Sailing clubs in Rhode Island to Category:Yacht clubs in Rhode Island (3/3 contents use "Yacht Club")
- Category:Sailing clubs in Tennessee to Category:Yacht clubs in Tennessee (1/1 contents use "Yacht Club")
- Category:Sailing clubs in Texas to Category:Yacht clubs in Texas (4/6 contents use "Yacht Club")
- Category:Sailing clubs in Wisconsin to Category:Yacht clubs in Wisconsin (4/5 contents use "Yacht Club")

Nominator's rationale: Following on from this discussion regarding parent Category:Yacht clubs in the United States that resulted in that being kept. "Yacht club" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this sort of organization, and as demonstrated it is overwhelmingly the preference for the naming of these categories' contents. (The one exception, Maryland, has one that is questionable with regard to being in category scope, and the other's article begins "is a yacht club".) Accordingly these should be renamed to (a) reflect common useage and their contents and (b) maintain consistency with their parent category. (Note that categories for California, Washington (state), and Puerto Rico are already at "Yacht club" and do not need renaming.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier User:Yachty4000 proposed renaming in opposite direction, they said that the term Yachting is outdated. I do not have an opinion about that myself. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- All these "yacht clubs" would clearly argue otherwise! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The overwhelming majority of clubs using "Yacht Club" is a compelling argument. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.--User:Namiba 18:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games about Cossacks

Propose deleting Category:Video games about Cossacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category was created a year ago by editor from well Ukrainian Wikipedia, though I can't handle this category being kept for what it currently looks like; it's pretty random trait for video games; and only contains 4 video games that just have "Cossacks" in the title which makes it way too obvious that they're about Coassacks. Perhaps you merge this category with Category:Works about Cossacks or alternatively create a new category for Category:Cossacks (video game series). QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it being "way too obvious they're about [subject]" is kind of the definition of WP:DEFINING? That said, the one member that isn't part of the series doesn't appear to be defined by it, so rename to Category:Cossacks (video game series), removing that member. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and re-parent per The Bushranger. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chaldean Americans

Propose merging Category:Chaldean Americans to Category:American people of Assyrian descent

Nominator's rationale: Category fits better within the scope of American people of Assyrian descent, noting that Chaldean Catholics are ethnically Assyrian and category includes those from the United States Surayeproject3 (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If merged, probably keep a redirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older discussions

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.

v t e Wikipedia categorization
Guidelines	Categorization Category names Categories, lists, and navigation templates Overcategorization Categorizing articles about people People by year Categorization/Sorting names Categorizing redirects User categories Overcategorization/User categories
Help pages	Basic help for readers Basic help for editors FAQ for readers FAQ for editors Container categories Categorizing portals Category classification templates Template index/Category namespace PetScan
Discussions	Categories for discussion Categories for discussion/Speedy Categories for discussion/All current discussions
Projectspace essays	Categories are different from articles Categories versus lists Categorising fictional characters by attribute Do not write articles using categories Overcategorization/Intersection of location and occupation Wiki workflow WikiProject Plants/Description in year categories
Userspace essays	DexDor/Terminology categories DexDor/Categorization of award recipients Alan Liefting/On categorisation Coder Dan/Categories gracefool/What is a category? Kbdank71/Wikiproject notification
Category:Wikipedia categorization Category:Contents WikiProject Categories