Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Shortcuts
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

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 ~~~~

(The four ~ will sign and datestamp the entry automatically.)
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 20:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 121 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).

Opposed requests

  • None currently

On hold pending other discussion

  • None currently

Moved to full discussion

  • Oppose, this is a category of princes, not so much of rebellions. Perhaps split. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe. Move to full then I guess? NLeeuw (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE: I have moved all of the following Categories here pending adequate confirmation of their eligibility under C2C. I made a serious effort to look for that, but was unable to find such confirmation. There is a massive jumbled welter of Categories in this realm, with no prevailing pattern that I can discern. Anomalous+0 (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now to all by ethnic or national origin nominations. 46.229.243.187 (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your opposition needs to have a reason. Mason (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The existing wording sounds more natural and is easier to understand. 46.229.243.187 (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved to full discussion:
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_30#Category:English_people_by_ethnic_or_national_origin
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_9#Category:Swedish_politicians_by_ethnic_or_national_origin
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_27#British_people_by_descent
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_6#Actors_by_ethnicity
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_7#People_from_British_Overseas_Territories_and_Crown_Dependencies_by_ethnic_or_national_origin
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_8#People_from_Overseas_France_by_ethnic_or_national_origin
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_9#Caribbean_people_by_descent
Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except in the United States, the "by descent" format seems to be standard everywhere. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current discussions

Shortcut

May 16

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Alsatian people

Nominator's rationale: merge (or reverse merge), very overlapping categories. Article List of Alsatians and Lotharingians describes Alsatians as people from the region Alsace. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Languages of Alsace

Nominator's rationale: merge, only one article in the category, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tschugguel family

Nominator's rationale: There are only two people in this category, which isn't helpful for navigation, and it is not clear how/if they are related. Delete for now, no objection to recreation if it becomes useful. Mason (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Ancient law (before 6th century BC)

Nominator's rationale: A collection of chronology categories that contain only one subcategory each; the 13th- and 7th-century BC subcategories also contain one article each, but Category:6th-century BC executions is excluded because it contains 5 articles. I think we will need a Category:Law by millennium tree to cover ancient laws, including ones that are even older than these categories (eg. Category:2nd-millennium BC executions, Code of Hammurabi from the 18th-century BC). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish mimes

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEGRS User:Namiba 17:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rajput clans of India

Nominator's rationale: Are there any not of India? * Pppery * it has begun... 15:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, there is no point in splitting this between India and Pakistan. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:YouTubers of Jewish descent

Nominator's rationale: This category should either be renamed to match the current norm of Jewish FOOers. Or deleted/merged to YouTubers as being descended from Jewish people is not defining (as opposed to being Jewish, which might be in this case) Mason (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEGRS. All of the categories I looked at are already in a national or sub-national YouTubers category.--User:Namiba 16:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Namiba. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Louisville White Sox (1914-1915) players

Nominator's rationale: This is an uncontroversial technical request but I don't see the option to indicate that using Twinkle. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 16:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Ewloe

Nominator's rationale: Ewloe is a small village. Upmerge for now, until there's actually enough people to need diffusion Mason (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omaha people

Nominator's rationale As there is only one recognized Omaha tribe, the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska (that is the official tribal name on the federal register), change this category's name to match the official name and get rid of the clunky parentheses. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:French people of Lorrainian descent

Nominator's rationale: delete, the category contains articles about French people who lived long after the Duchy of Lorraine was annexed by France: this happened end of the 18th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. This also doesn't really feel like a defining feature for any of the people in this category. Mason (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meuse-Argonne American Cemetery

Nominator's rationale: delete, it only contains the eponymous article and a subcategory, which isn't helpful for navigation. Thd subcategory suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politics of Lorraine

Nominator's rationale: merge, Lorraine is meanwhile a defunct administrative division, now part of Grand Est. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palestinian musicians by genre

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sikh monarchs

Nominator's rationale: dual merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parents seem to be inappropriate but they do fit the content. All Sikhs in this category are Punjabis, all Jats in this category are Sikhs. The content of this category shouldn't be moved out of the Punjabi or Jat tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That they do fit the content is irrelevant; we've got other trees for that. Chand Kaur is already in Category:Punjabi women, for example. Btw Duleep Singh was a Christian for several decades, so we can't assume all of them to have been Sikhs ever. If we really wanna categorise all that in 1 category, then we should rename them Category:Punjabi Sikh Jat emperors or something. NLeeuw (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the alt proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Albanian rights activists

Nominator's rationale: I think we should rename this category so it is easier to distinguish from Albanian activists. I think that this category is supposed to be Activists who advocate for the rights of Albanian people, as opposed to activists who are albanian nationals. Similar categories like this one are Category:Activists for Hispanic and Latino American civil rights & Category:Activists for African-American civil rights Mason (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 08:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on the deletion proposal would be very much appreciated! (If there is no further participation, I would expect this discussion would result in a rename.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Smasongarrison, Nederlandse Leeuw, and Bohemian Baltimore: please comment on the alt deletion proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not opposed to purging. But there are folks in there like Ali Aliu, who seems to be defined by both his nationalism and his support of rights of ethnic albanians. Mason (talk) 04:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All 5 people in this category seem to be ethnic Albanians in Kosovo who were/are opposed to oppression of Kosovo Albanians by Serbs, as well as nationalists who sought independence or unification with Albania. But it is a mixed bag. One is a militant rebel, another is an educator. I suppose we could Merge them all to Category:Albanian nationalists in Kosovo, where 3 out of 5 of them already are. The subcategory has nothing to do with Kosovo per se, and should be Purged. NLeeuw (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cartoon Network stubs

Nominator's rationale: Stub category no longer populated enough to warrant retention. As always, stub categories need to have a minimum of 60 articles, but after I detagged a handful of articles that were too long to be tagged as stubs at all this went from 25 to 20. It has existed in its current form since 2011, after being deleted as underpopulated in 2007 -- but was then tagged as underpopulated again in 2018, until that template was deleted at TFD, so it's not entirely clear that it was ever really adequately populated at all.
Even the 20 pages that are here are a bit of a random grab bag, as it's populated mainly by video game or album tie-ins to Cartoon Network programming and/or foreign channels that franchised Cartoon Network or Boomerang branding, rather than things that actually have much to do with the Category:United States television stubs parent -- so it's not at all clear that there are actually very many things that could be added here to get it back over 60 articles again. It's not generally standard practice, at any rate, to stub-tag things for overly specific associations like particular TV networks; WikiProject Cartoon Network already has project templates on the talk pages anyway, so this isn't serving any important purpose that isn't already being served elsewhere. Bearcat (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]



May 15

Category:Unreal Engine 5 games

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

Category:Ministerial departments of the Sierra Leone Government

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining distinction that doesn't help navigation Mason (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Oxford University Press Delegate

Nominator's rationale: Non defining. If not merged, it should be renamed to Oxford University Press "delegates" Mason (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Block books

Nominator's rationale: This category is not helpful navigation. It contains the epon article and one book. As described on the category page, this does not seem like a defining feature... "Block books or blockbooks, also called xylographica, are short books of up to 50 leaves, block printed in Europe in the second half of the 15th century as woodcuts with blocks carved to include both text (usually) and illustrations." Mason (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ipswich town preachers

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category that is effectively is the same. Mason (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Propose capitalisation: move Category:Ipswich town preachers to Category:Ipswich Town Preachers. When this category entered the jigsaw world of signs, known as wikipedia, it was unclear whether the category should use uppercase letters to initialise not merely Ipswich, but also "Town Preacher". The Oxford Academic use lower case, but local historian John Blatchly goes for uppercase. I think the advantage of this that it is clear that this refers to people who held a formal role, rather than a simply being a wikipedia category that lists Clergy from Ipswich. Often Ipswich Corporation appointed people from elsewhere. Bearing in mind the significance of some of those who occupied this role such as Samuel Ward (minister) or Cave Beck, it would seem appropriate to have such a category. I feel that capitalisation will indicate the category is more formal/historical. Leutha (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I've reverted your unexplained removal of this category from the proposed merge target. How is this category not Clergy from Ipswich? And why is the current category parented by 17th-century clergy. Mason (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen from the discussion above, the category is quite formal. Many people filing this role were not from Ipswich: Samuel Ward (minister) was from Haverhill, Matthew Lawrence (preacher) was from North Lincolnshire, Cave Beck was from London. The references for the Town Preachers are largely consistent from 1604, G. R.Clarke gives a list of 7 before 1604 in his 1830 The history and description of the town and borough of Ipswich : 343 . However only one appears in Blatchly's list in his book on The Town Library of Ipswich (1989): 177 . Any suggestions as regards how to handle the earlier individuals such as Roger Kelke, the Marian exile who returned to become Ipswich Town Preacher from 1560 until 1575, according to Blatchly? ibid : 4 . Leutha (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, clergy is usually a formal role, that is not a good reason for a split. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories without CatAutoTOC and friends

Nominator's rationale:

This whole tree needs a little bit of love. I came here to propose a speedy rename from "Foo CatAutoTOC bar" to "Foo Automatic category TOC bar" following a RM at Template talk:Automatic category TOC#Requested move 28 April 2024, but I think this whole tree needs to be simplified. It is so small that diffusing by number of pages in the category is a hindrance to navigation. I will also note that Category:Categories without CatAutoTOC is terribly named: it only contains categories which use {{Category TOC}} or {{Large category TOC}} directly.

I propose we get rid of the tree and replace it with two categories, one for each template: Category:Categories which use Large category TOC without Automatic category TOC and Category:Categories which use Category TOC without Automatic category TOC. Finally, I propose we delete Category:Categories without CatAutoTOC in favor of a hatnote between the two new categories. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Adam Black talk • contributions 16:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only one to use this category really has been banned and there really is no indication what purpose this serve once the data was collected. So agree with proposal. If at any point in the future this or something similar is needed, recreating isn't that difficult. Gonnym (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rātana politicians

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. No need to merge, the subcategory is already in the tree of the three potential targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we certain there are no Rātana people who stood but were not elected? I would prefer to keep ‘politicians’, but delete ‘MPs’. If that is not preferred, then yes, I would still delete ‘politicians’. — HTGS (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there seems to be a lot of confusion in this category (and in articles relating to Rātana as a political force). Some of these people are adherents of the Rātana faith who became MPs, others of them were MPs for the Rātana Party or (after affiliation with the Labour Party) MPs officially endorsed by the Rātana church. Soraya Peke-Mason, for example, is a Rātana, but not an official Rātana-endorsed MP. If that can be cleared up I'd support Marcocapelle's second suggestion (merging MPs into politicians). Grutness...wha? 14:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Adam Black talk • contributions 16:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Georgetown College (Kentucky)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Georgetown College. Unopposed for two weeks. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with the main article, Georgetown College. Graham (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Adam Black talk • contributions 16:21, 15 May 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:Deaths from food poisoning

Nominator's rationale: Conflict in naming conventions between Category:Deaths from digestive disease and Category:Deaths from infectious disease; and Category:Deaths by poisoning. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – I think we mostly use "deaths by" for intentional killings, "deaths from" or "deaths due to" where there was no intention. The current name seems to be natural English, but Category:Deaths due to food poisoning sounds OK as an alternative. – Fayenatic London 10:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on FL's proposal would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American people of Arab descent

Nominator's rationale: Empty category, fork of the Category:American people of Middle Eastern descent. Aldij (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Central African Republic people

Nominator's rationale: Although most nationality categories are named 'Fooinan people', there are several exceptions: Category:People from Georgia (country), Category:People from Northern Ireland, Category:People from the State of Palestine, as well as almost all subcategories in Category:People by former country and about half of those in Category:People by dependent territory. I think 'People from the Central African Republic' is a much clearer and better name in English than 'Central African Republic people'. Aldij (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caucasus Jews

Nominator's rationale: There are two Jewish ethnic groups originating from the Caucasus region: Mountain Jews and Georgian Jews. The term Caucasus Jews currently redirects to "Mountain Jews." These two groups are culturally distinct; they speak different languages and have many differences in customs and culture. However, other Jewish communities have also resided and continue to reside in the Caucasus region, including primarily Ashkenazi Jews, as well as some Sephardic and Bukharan Jews. Therefore, this category does not make sense. Currently, this category encompasses Jews from three modern countries, yet "Caucasus Jews" redirects to "Mountain Jews." Note: I have just separated the entries for category:Jews from Georgia (country) and category:Georgian Jews. Aldij (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British people of Tajik descent

Nominator's rationale: 1 article category Gjs238 (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete. Being "Clearly part of a detailed and comprehensive category tree". is not a sufficiently good reason to keep a category. It rewards categories that are old, rather than categories that are useful. Mason (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete: 1-article category Gjs238 (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian people of Tajik descent

Nominator's rationale: 1 article category Gjs238 (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly part of a detailed and comprehensive category tree. No purpose whatsoever served by deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete, the category does not contain any biography. The topic article is already in Category:Asian diaspora in Canada where it properly belongs. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete. Being "Clearly part of a detailed and comprehensive category tree". is not a sufficiently good reason to keep a category. It rewards categories that are old, rather than categories that are useful. Mason (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete: 1-article category Gjs238 (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of West Asian descent

Nominator's rationale: This category tree is not needed. Western Asia is often conflated with the Middle East. Western Asia includes the South Caucasus but does not include Egypt (outside the Sinai Peninsula) and Turkish Thrace (geographically in Southeast Europe). Now "West Asian descent" categories merely serve as containers for "Middle East descent" and "Caucasus descent." However, these classifications are not entirely accurate. The term "People of Middle East descent" includes individuals from the African part of Egypt and Turkish Thrace in Europe, while "People of Caucasus descent" encompasses individuals from the North Caucasus in Europe. Aldij (talk) 09:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Asian parent categories. I agree that West Asia and Middle East are largely overlapping and we do not need both. However, it does not make sense to remove the content from the Asian tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, merge to Asian parent categories is better. Aldij (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Merging to Asian parent categories is my second choice per Marco. NLeeuw (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First, Category:Canadian people of West Asian descent has been emptied. Secondly, if we have categories for South Asia and Southeast Asia, wouldn't it make more sense to keep West Asia and dump the "Middle East" categories instead? They both are a little imprecise but what would make more sense fitting in with the existing geographic categorization? Liz Read! Talk! 19:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it would be better to merge the category trees of South Asia and Southeast Asia into Asia as well. I will nominate them separately now. Regarding the decision to discard the "Middle East" categories, I'm not certain there is consensus for this, nor am I sure whether I will personally support it. However, perhaps they need to be deleted as well. Aldij (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championships

Nominator's rationale: Harmonizing subcategory names in the Category:IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championship. Please see also the previous discussion here. Maiō T. (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The nomenclature aligns with the official name of the tournament as used by the IIHF. Spitzmauskc (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The naming is unnecessarily redundant. The proposal is equivalent to "1999 International Ice Hockey Federation Ice Hockey Women's World Championships". What logical reason is there to say ice hockey twice? Seems like the parent category should be discussed, not the children. Flibirigit (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The IIHF uses "IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championship" on all official documentation. I suspect the inclusion of 'Ice Hockey' has its roots in the period during which the IIHF also organized the IIHF Inline Hockey World Championship. While I don’t disagree that the name may read as redundant, I do see value in maintaining the official name and feel the inclusion of 'Ice Hockey' is a helpful indicator for readers who may not be familiar with the IIHF acronym. Spitzmauskc (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've tagged all of the categories and notified the creators.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arab diaspora in the Middle East

Nominator's rationale: Not all individuals from countries such as Egypt, Iraq, Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon self-identify as Arabs. Therefore, this categorization may be misleading and fail to accurately reflect the diverse ethnic and national identities of people from these regions. Additionally, the term "diaspora" refers to a community of people who live outside their place of origin or ancestry. However, since Arabs are indigenous to the Middle East, the use of "diaspora" in this context can be confusing and inaccurate. Aldij (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mexican people of Arab descent

Nominator's rationale: Small category, I propose to upmerge into category:Mexican people of Middle Eastern descent. Aldij (talk) 09:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, and it is not even sure if these people are of Arab descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shiromani Akali Dal (Amritsar)

Nominator's rationale: delete, only contains the eponymous article and a subcategory. The subcategory suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fiddlers from Sweden

Nominator's rationale: I think these categories should be merged because frankly it's confusing to have two swedish categories Mason (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename of Alien invasions in media et al.

Nominator's rationale: Rename per several past renames, in order to make it clear that these categories are for media that are about alien invasions and such, not where such things make potentially trivial appearances. DonIago (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Surely we dont want [Category:Alien visitations in fiction] be populated with novels where, like, "Hey Bob, Pete says he was visited by aliens. He must be drinking" - Altenmann >talk
  • Rename, stressing that it should be a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all except "alien visitations", which should be upmerged as overly vague - alien visitation is a disambiguation page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Trivial examples can already be removed with the current names and related guidelines. Cambalachero (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how this is an argument against renaming the categories? This discussion is consistent with multiple recent category renamings as noted in the rationale. A few of them: [1], [2], [3], [4]. DonIago (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rename all, and I agree with DonIago's comment about how purging doesn't address the question at hand. Mason (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all in line with numerous precedents, like that time I launched around 14 bulk nominations of this type. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comic book editors

Nominator's rationale: The term "comic book" is used for periodical comics publications and is not inclusive of manga, webcomics, graphic novels, etc. "Comics editors" is inclusive of all forms of comics. Thematthewmurray (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Those are different industries, don't mix apples and oranges. Rather create "manga editors" in Category:Manga industry and list them there. As for the others, graphic novels may not be the same as comic books, but the industry that makes them is the same one, so there's no problem grouping them together. And are there webcomic editors? isn't that a self-published genre? Cambalachero (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While there have been webcomics editors for years, the rise of webcomic platforms/sites like Webtoon and Tapas mean that they are more prominent than before.
Since you suggested splitting out Japanese editors, I'll mention that the category also currently includes comics editors who worked in the comics industries in Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, Serbia, and the UK. Thematthewmurray (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the industry of webcomics is so developed now, then yes, create a third category for them. As for Japan, Japanese comics are a specific and distinct genre in its own right. Can we say the same of the comics of those other countries? Cambalachero (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are pages for Bande dessinée (Franco-Belgian comics), Brazilian comics, Comics in Mexico, Manhua (Chinese comics), Dutch comics, Serbian comics, and British comics. I am far from an expert in all of these, but I feel that some of them (such as Franco-Belgian comics) are easily as developed as Japanese comics.
I'll also mention that the majority of other categories for comics-related positions use the term "comics." Category:Comics creators, Category:Comics writers, Category:Comics artists, Category:Comics colorists, and Category:Comics inkers. (The one exception is Category:Comic book letterers.) Additionally the subpages are in the same format: Category:Comics writers by nationality. Thematthewmurray (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Franz von Sickingen

Nominator's rationale: This category only contains the Franz von Sickingen, who was a leader of the Knights' War and the category of the conflict. I think that they should either be merged or this category should be deleted. It really doesn't help navigation. Mason (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 14

Category:Soda Den games

Nominator's rationale: I am not sure if categories with a single page (or less than a few) is allowed. Therefore, I am bringing this to discussion. I am putting Category:Amstrad video games and Category:BlankMediaGames games for the same reason, since Twinkle (the userscript) doesn't me do that. JuniperChill (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to mention 'Category:BlankMediaGames games' and one other but for some reason, it isn't appearing. JuniperChill (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Art festivals in the United States

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The name is too similar to Category:Arts festivals in the United States, creating confusion about which articles and categories belong in which. Vegantics (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Upon further research I now understand that this is a (admittedly confusing) standard across Wikipedia. I'm not sure if I can retract a discussion but no longer feel the discussion is needed. Vegantics (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vegantics As nominator, you can vote Withdraw, as long as nobody has given a vote in support of your proposal. Then the discussion will be speedily closed. :) NLeeuw (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I appreciate your help. Vegantics (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Seems okay, but we don't have any Category:Visual arts festivals cat (tree) yet. Does it overlap with Category:Visual arts competitions, Category:Visual arts conferences and/or Category:Visual arts exhibitions? The latter has Category:Art festivals as a child, so that seems to be an apt parent. On the other hand, do all current items in Category:Art festivals in the United States fit the "visual arts" domain? Category:Arts festivals by type suggests a lot of other domains. If you could answer those questions, we might have a better idea what you are proposing. NLeeuw (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the questions. In reviewing Category:Art festivals in the United States, which is described as intended for "festivals focused on the visual arts," I noticed some articles which do not seem applicable. I suspect this is because editors made the same mistake that I did of confusing it with Category:Arts festivals in the United States. However I now realize that this is a bigger standard across Wikipedia and would require a much larger, more extensive discussion. Vegantics (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. Would you like to start somewhere else, or could we use this case as an example to set a precedent for future discussions? I should add I've never been to the United States and visuals arts are quite outside my area of expertise (hence the questions for clarification), but I would like to help you out in finding the best way of categorising all these articles. Personally, I find the current category tree quite confusing, so it's a good idea to discuss how we could improve it. NLeeuw (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it does need to be addressed, but I want to do some additional research into how extensive this is and how much renaming would be required. I'm not equipped to lead such a discussion and would rather drop it for the time being. Vegantics (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's okay. As I said above, you can vote to Withdraw your own proposal. Take your time to your time to work out what you would like to discuss, and then come back some time with a new proposal. Good luck! NLeeuw (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Upon further research I now understand that this is a (admittedly confusing) standard across Wikipedia. Vegantics (talk) 18:34, 14 May 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:United States politicians killed during the Civil War

Nominator's rationale: per article title American Civil War. This was opposed for speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion

@AHI-3000 and Ymblanter: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support per nom, but I need clarifications first: why is "United States" proposed to be omitted? So that it could also include Confederate politicians and perhaps foreign politicians who somehow got killed in the ACW? That would mean it no longer fits in the Category:20th-century American politicians (should be Category:19th-century American politicians), and more broadly the Category:American people tree, since Confederates and foreigners were arguably not "United States citizens" for the duration of the ACW (at least from the Confederate POV). In fact, I see the category currently already contains Confederate politicians, so removing "United States" is a good idea, but then we should remove Category:20th-century American politicians as a parent. But that may be a bit too legally speaking on my part . NLeeuw (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zzap!64 Gold Medal Award winners

Nominator's rationale: A category for winners of "Gold Medal", awarded by a video game magazine. No article on it. See also this discussion. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 04:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UCLA Department of Earth Planetary and Space Sciences alumni

Nominator's rationale: Degrees from a school within a university may be defining, a degree from a specific department isn't typically defining. See for a similar case Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_23#Category:Harvard_University_Department_of_Psychology_alumni Mason (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ship names with ukrainian origin

Nominator's rationale: WP:TRIVIALCAT. Mellk (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (But if kept, it should be renamed to "Ukrainian")Mason (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paintings of Hebrew Bible themes

Nominator's rationale: merge, a split between Hebrew Bible and Old Testament does not make too much sense in biblical art which largely originates from Christianity. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge, Hebrew Bible is the main tree here. NLeeuw (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a "main" tree per se. Old Testament is different (order of bible books), broader (with deuterocanonical books) and more applicable to topics that are more exclusively associated with Christianity. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether deuterocanonical books are included depends entirely on denomination. "Hebrew Bible" is the name for the 39 books common to Judaism and Christianity, and I see no reason why Christianity should be regarded as more important.
    On second thought, it might be better to upmerge Category:Paintings based on the Old Testament to its parents, as it is currently a mostly redundant layer. How does that sound? NLeeuw (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re "Whether deuterocanonical books are included depends entirely on denomination", as things stand the "deuterocanonical books" category is within the "Old Testament" one, so isn't this an argument against the status quo as well? But it's resolved if Category:Paintings based on the Old Testament is upmerged to its parents, leaving the subdivisions of the (Christian) Bible as "Hebrew Bible", "deuterocanonical books" and "New Testament" – with no "Old Testament"? I hope I've got that right. Ham II (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tokyo Musashino United FC

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON * Pppery * it has begun... 00:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Architects

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OCEPON. These categories only contain an eponymous article and a subcategory, so having the subcategory suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Mason (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As this is a larger nomination, giving an extra week for objections.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ossetian male writers

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Non-defining intersection between ethnicity, occupation, and gender. Mason (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; we already have similar categories of ethnciity/occuptation/gender, such as Category:African-American male writers, Category:Yoruba women writers, and Category:Basque women writers. Categorizing writers by gender and nationality is quite common as well; see Category:Male writers by nationality. ForsythiaJo (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 13

California articles missing geocoordinate data

Nominator's rationale: There's no longer a need for these by-county maintenance categories. They were created 15 years ago when the backlog was much larger and separating by county was useful. The backlog has been greatly reduced; at the moment, every one of these categories is empty. (Special thanks to User:Oona Wikiwalker who has added a lot of coordinates recently.) The rate of new California-related articles is low enough that the statewide category is sufficient. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, but where have the remaining articles been moved to? I can't seem to find them.
And thank you for the kind words!Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oona Wikiwalker: I removed the last remaining articles today by adding coordinates to some and removing the others that didn't need coordinates. There are currently no California-related articles that have been tagged as needing coordinates. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you determine which articles don't need coordinates? I suspect I've wasted a lot of effort on pages that didn't need coordinates... Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some US counties are very small in area or population. For example, the category tree for Alpine County, California, has only 194 articles according to Petscan — this county has only about 1,000 people and is smaller in area than most counties in Texas. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination, although if these are now empty categories wouldn't CSD C1 have been quicker and more apporpriate? Adam Black talk • contributions 22:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Adam Black GB: The guidelines for C1 seem to exclude occasionally-empty maintenance categories; this is a somewhat uncommon case of those categories no longer being needed. I figured it was better to bring to CfD than risk confusion with CSD. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. From my reading of it I thought C1 could be used if the maintenance category templates weren't on the page. Adam Black talk • contributions 22:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trinitrotoluene

Nominator's rationale: Category name should be consistent with the title of the article TNT. HertzDonuts (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as there are lots of meanings. Unlike articles, where it's easy to find and correct mislinking ("TNT" but not the chemical meaning), cats are less well patrolled, harder to notice, and and create more problems when mis-set. In fact, the original Category:TNT was about the Russian TV channel even though the the chemical article was already at TNT. WP:MOSCAT notes:
"Avoid abbreviations. Example: "Category:Military equipment of World War II", not "Category:Military equipment of WW2". However, acronyms that have become the official, or generally used, name (such as NATO) should be used where there are no other conflicts."
and in this case the name is not "official", just COMMONNAME and there is a conflict. I have no objection to {{Category disambiguation}} or similar solution (I see that Category:Disambiguation categories does have other entries where the eponymous page is a redirect to a better-named article). DMacks (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals notified of this discussion. DMacks (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American communists of the Stalin era

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Communists in the United States are not necessarily defined by the leader of another country. User:Namiba 17:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers published in Western Australia by region

Nominator's rationale: I'm proposing renaming these categories for consistency with the following existing categories:
There are also four other regions (the Gascoyne, Great Southern, Kimberley and Perth metropolitan regions) without categories at present, but I plan to work on articles for as many of Australia's newspapers as I can so I expect these categories to be necessary at some point. The only reason for this nomination is for consistency amongst sub-category names, so I wouldn't be opposed to another naming scheme. This one just makes the most sense to me. Adam Black talk • contributions 16:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Western Australia notified of this discussion. Adam Black talk • contributions 21:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have now created the categories for the remaining three Western Australian regions,
Therefore six of the ten subcategories now follow the same naming scheme. I would also like to add another category to this nomination:
The rationale is the same as for the original proposal. Adam Black talk • contributions 07:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ernest Cline

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary layer of categorization. The "works by" category suffices as a top level parent category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Electoral reform in Jersey

Nominator's rationale: No need to differentiate the electoral reform referendums from the others. At the very least, have it nested under the referendums in jersey category rather its own separate category alongside it. Saltywalrusprkl (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Yoruba police officers

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEGRS. There are MANY Yoruba occupation categories which could also be nominated. Moreover, many of the people in these categories are put their because of their name, not because sources say that they are Yoruba. User:Namiba 14:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beringia

Nominator's rationale: delete, anachronistic content, Beringia is a concept from prehistoric geography, but the category only contains current-day geography. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Marcocapelle's definition contradicts the maim article Beringia, which defines it as a current region. Dimadick (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not. It was one coherent region because the Bering Street was dry land. That is no longer the case. Beringia is not usually on any current-day map. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Dimadick. Nom seems to ignore the fact that the English term Beringia is also used for a present-day region. That it doesn't usually appear on present-day maps is an argument from anecdotal evidence. If nom could demonstrate that the category arbitrarily mixes up past and present in a confusing manner, that would be interesting to consider for a renaming or split, or something. NLeeuw (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except a spurious touristic source, all sources referenced to are related to prehistory. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm... wait, I may have judged too soon. NLeeuw (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. That one source, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/beringia/index.htm, claiming that Beringia still exists today, evidently represents a fringe view not supported by the first 10 other sources I checked. All other language versions also support the idea that it is a region which no longer exists, and equivalent to "Bering Land Bridge". So let's remove that spurious source, and delete the whole category that has nothing to do with the geological, geographical and human migratory aspect of Beringia. NLeeuw (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles involving Bengal

Nominator's rationale: merge, battles are diffused by (former) countries and Bengal was not a country. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok that is a reasonable alternative, but then still the content should be added to Category:Battles involving the Indian kingdoms too. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: it should only be a selective merge to that parent, because many of the articles are already in other subcats of that one, and I'm not sure whether the others belong there. I suggest you watch the category and merge any valid missing items yourself if the rename goes through. – Fayenatic London 15:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Input in general would be great, but in particular input on FL's proposal would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons

Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category. Let'srun (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; standard cat scheme. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Saying something is standard, so we should keep it, is not a compelling reason. Having only one category is not helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Parallelism matters and should be considered a central pillar of Wikipedia. If this cat merged as nominated, then 1943 Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football team is lost from the tree at Category:College football seasons by team. User:Let'srun's notations here are becoming tiresome and obstructive. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic bishops in Macau

Nominator's rationale: merge, per article List of bishops of Macau, Catholic bishops are primarily bishop of a diocese. This is follow-up on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_16#Category:16th-century_Roman_Catholic_bishops_in_Portuguese_Macau. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Although I'm on the fence about merging to Category:FOO-century Macau people, because not everyone is from Macau. Mason (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category tree is now a big mess.  · There were Catholic bishops who were appointed bishops or titular bishops elsewhere but stationed in Macau, some of them as coadjutor/auxiliary bishops or administrators or governors of this diocese. These bishops were not bearers of the title Bishop of Macau although they were bishops who worked in Macau. Further the diocese covered a much much larger area in the Far East. It's only since the 1950s (or the 1980s if the two parishes in Malacca Malaysia and Singapore are taken into consideration) the Diocese of Macau is coterminous with the present-day territorial extent of Macau. From its founding in the 16th century hundreds of dioceses have been carved out from this diocese. The first proposal regarding Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Macau is therefore opposed.  · Likewise the second and the third proposals for the 19th and 20th century categories are opposed for the reasons as stated above, and that this is also a vote for the restoration of the 16th to 18th century categories. If the 19th and the 20th century categories (and the 16th to 18th century categories as well) were to be merged the target should be Portugal since the territory was over the period a Portuguese province (save for the last twelve days of the 20th century).  · For the fourth proposal on the 21st century category, bear in mind that the bishop does not participate in any conference of bishops or anything similar of the Chinese catholic church, and that the present bishop is not a native of Macau – There is no point to proceed as proposed.  · Overall this is a keep vote (and a vote to clear the mess under the preexisting structure prior to CfD 16 April). 58.152.55.172 (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: To the closer, this IP is WP:HKGW and has been the one making a mess of this and other similar categories. Mason (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user labelled me as such with no explanation and I simply don't understand why she gave me such a label. It appears she just labels when she's running out of supporting arguments. I took no part in making this mess. The categories nominated in this CfD or the 16 April one were created by other editors, and I'd done nothing to change them. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • By all means purge bishops who were appointed bishops or titular bishops elsewhere, but stationed in Macau. If the tree is a mess we simply should have a clean-up. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of a larger categorisation scheme. Moving articles from categories of dependencies to those of the sovereign powers is not uncontested. 42.200.80.48 (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional animals by taxon

Nominator's rationale: No reason has been given why this unnecessarily WP:NARROWCAT has been created. It only contains two taxons which is not enough to justify an entire separate category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Fictional animals by taxon, but merge Category:Fictional invertebrates and Category:Fictional vertebrates into Category:Fictional animals by taxon. AHI-3000 (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately doing that is just shuffling around deck chairs and makes no real difference. But I think the more longstanding categories (since 2006) should take precedence over your new 2024 category, not things be merged just because you want your category to be prominent. You have just stated an opinion but not provided a reason to back why taxon is better than the vertebrate/invertebrate split. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: My suggestion is to leave "Fictional animals by taxon" with 8 subcategories instead of 2, if your only argument is that it's too small right now. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the nominated and the alt proposal could be an improvement, but I prefer the alternative, in order to keep taxa together as a recognizable attrribute. I have tagged the two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: So do you support my suggestion? AHI-3000 (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish communities destroyed in the Holocaust

Nominator's rationale: Disclaimer: I would like to say that this is a sensitive topic that should not be treated lightly. I am going to make some observations that seek to address what I see as inappropriate categorisation practices, but I thereby do not seek to deny or diminish or trivialise the severity of The Holocaust. That said: I think this is an WP:ARBITRARYCAT that should be listified, and every entry supported by WP:RS.
Detailed explanation
Firstly: We cannot say that a city or town, which had at some point a "Jewish community" (something which should also be properly defined first in terms of numbers and characteristics) living in it, should in its entirety be included in this category. The precedent Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 27#Category:Hungarian communities in Slovakia comes to mind: a minority community within a populated place or administrative region cannot be WP:DEFINING for the identity of that place or region as a whole. This is a wider issue within the Category:Historic Jewish communities in Europe tree, but also in similar category trees of "communities" that categorise entire places or regions based on a minority of ethnic group X living within its borders.
Secondly, what exactly "destroyed" means is also not clear, as there have also been many Holocaust survivors. Is a "community" only destroyed when 100% of its members did not survive the Holocaust, or is 90% enough? I'm sorry if that seems like a strange or inappropriate question, but it is one we need to ask to avoid having arbitrary percentages, and thus WP:ARBITRARYCATs. It is the same reason why we can't have Category:Fooian-speaking countries just because, say, more than 50% of inhabitants in country X speaks Fooian, because '50%' is arbitrary. (So I had those categories all renamed last year as well).
What "destroyed" means exactly may also vary. A few years ago, there was a long dispute on Dutch Wikipedia about "List of castles destroyed by the French during the Franco-Dutch War" (it had many different titles, all of which were quite arbitrary and untenable; link: nl:Wikipedia:Te beoordelen pagina's/Toegevoegd 20201103#Lijst van kastelen in Nederland, die door de Fransen rond 1672 of 1794 verwoest zijn). There, it turned out that some castles were rather "damaged" than "destroyed", or "demolished" outside of combat, and that a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH was involved in developing the list. Like this category, that list mostly sought to highlight and quantify the extent of the destruction wrought by a group of perpetrators, but failed to properly define what it was exactly about. "Community" is an even vaguer concept than "castle", and how one can "destroy a community" is really a question I would rather like to leave up to sociologists than us category Wikipedians.
If we listify this category, we could at least provide reliable sources in which scholars explain what they mean; categories cannot do that for us. NLeeuw (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the category contains articles about current-day European cities and towns rather than articles about pre-1945 Jewish communities. No objection against listification per se, but I think this task is far too big for someone to start with on a short term. The category content may be listed at the talk page of a relevant WikiProject before deletion, for someone, or maybe for multiple editors together, to start listifying in their own pace. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like a good idea. Perhaps the creator @Eladkarmel is willing to do so? NLeeuw (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These populated places are not notable for being Jewish communities. Dimadick (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not enough commentary on the proposal to listify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick Do you support the proposal to listify before deleting? NLeeuw (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only if there are enough independent sources for such a list. Dimadick (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect there are plenty of libraries full of sources writing about this. But as Marco said, documenting and verifying all that takes a lot of time, so it would probably be best to list the content on a relevant WikiProject talk page. I think the most appropriate would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history. NLeeuw (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will drop a note at WT:JH.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American buskers

Nominator's rationale: This was previously discussed and agreed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 31#Category:American buskers before it was suddenly moved back without any discussion. WP:ENGVAR allows us to use the American English term. Buskers is not a word generally used in the United States. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename in the spirit of WP:G4 but keep a redirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @QuietHere: as you listed this at WP:CFDS you might want to react as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I noted when I nominated this for a speedy move in January (see here), the relevant parent category is Category:Buskers by nationality, in which all other entries use that same word. I don't think it makes sense for just one category out of the tree to use different terminology, so I am opposed to this proposal as is. However, I would not oppose renaming the whole tree (and every other relevant category in the greater Category:Buskers tree) based on this given "busking" and "busker" are both redirects to street performance, and I would think it best for all categories to match with that. Plus, I would imagine "street performer" to be a better known, more readily understood, term than "busker". If you wish to extend this proposal to the whole tree, then I will gladly change my vote, but as is I think matching category names is ideal regardless of what terminology is in use. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Migrant to the Ottoman Empire people from British India

Nominator's rationale: option A: merge, three categories for only one article is not helpful for navigation. Option B:delete, the article is already in Category:Emigrants from British India and Category:Immigrants to the Ottoman Empire which seems to suffice. For a citizen of the Ottoman Empire it is irrelevant which specific Indian ethnicities all of his ancestors had. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military history of Lorraine

Nominator's rationale: merge, Lorraine is a defunct administrative division, meanwhile part of Grand Est. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support It's true that it is no longer an administrative division, but we've got lots of other "Military history of former country/province X" cats. But I suppose it's okay to merge if that makes navigation easier. NLeeuw (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nederlandse Leeuw: if you know other "Military history of former province" categories let me know and I will nominate them too. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmmm I suppose there aren't that many, actually. I expected to find them everywhere, but all I could find that semi-qualifies is Category:Military history of Savoy, Category:Military history of Baden etc. But those have arguably been independent countries at some point before becoming provinces of larger countries. If I do find others, I'll let you know or nominate them myself. At any rate, seems like your rationale is in line with common practice. NLeeuw (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New South Wales rugby union team players

Nominator's rationale: The two are covering the same team and should be merged. Especially as New South Wales rugby union team redirects to the Waratahs. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Perhaps there's a better way, but this was an attempt on my part to differentiate between the professional Super Rugby era iteration of the team and the historical side. This would be in the same way rugby league has Category:New South Wales Rugby League State of Origin players as a subcat of Category:New South Wales rugby league team players (though both are captured in the one article). Maybe an option would be to move Category:New South Wales Waratahs players to Category:New South Wales Waratahs (Super Rugby) players? Jevansen (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This seems to be a split for players who played pre-professionalism for New South Wales, and then who played Super Rugby for the Waratahs. While the naming probably isn't perfect, I see the split as being suitable to differentiate between those who played the the New South Wales region, and those who played for the team. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its still the same team @Rugbyfan22: because it seems the Waratah's name was adopted in the 1920's. Just because they turned pro, doesn't mean they stopped being the same side. Rugby was not invented in 1995, the lineage is the same and should be maintained. This is essentially a duplicate category. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles in Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN and recent precedents. NLeeuw (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles in Grand Est

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN and recent precedents. NLeeuw (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kyrgyzstani politicians of Korean descent

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. there'd no need to diffuse Kyrgyzstani people of Korean descent by occupation. Mason (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per given reasoning. Also only one page in the politician cat 104.232.119.107 (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jules Dassin

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous parent category for one subcategory of films. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Analysts of Ayodhya dispute

Nominator's rationale: Alternative name sounds more consistent with other categories in Scholars and academics by subject Mason (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as the page creator. I have no objection. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the spirit of WP:PERFCAT, this is just one of many topics that the subjects in this category were involved. No objection to listification. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political linguistics

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge/delete. This category contains one page and a redirect, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños faculty

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This is an institute Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños within Hunter college. This category is too small to be helpful with navigation right now. Mason (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the upper-level category of City University of New York faculty is for a system of colleges and institutes, and the articles in it should be diffused into the appropriate subcats for each of the different colleges within the system in the same way as categories are done for other university systems. Ideally, all of the articles in the CUNY faculty cat would be diffused into subcats of the different colleges or institutes. Additionally, from what I understand, the centro is housed at Hunter College, but is a separate institute within the CUNY system. Semper Fi FieldMarine (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. No objection to diffusion as such, as long as it colleges are big enough to contain lots of articles, but that does not seem to be the case here. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NBA 2K players

Nominator's rationale: Only one subject in category Let'srun (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic. (If not deleted, merge per nom.) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century Canadian people (post-Confederation)

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between century and confederation status. There isn't a Canadian people (post-Confederation) category. Mason (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the problem is rather in pre-Confederation Canada, when Canada did not yet exist and the term British North America is controversial. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Canada did not mean all of what you now know as Canada in that era, but it most certainly did exist. A person from the pre-1867 Province of Canada most certainly was a Canadian; a person from the pre-Durham provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada most certainly was a Canadian. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which can be easily fixed by creating the more appropriate categories and moving those people to them, and doesn't require this. Until better categories for where they were really from actually exist, however, categorizing pre-confederation New Brunswickers or Newfoundlanders as "Canadian", while certainly not ideal, remains preferable to leaving them completely out of the entire tree. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The question of whether a person died before or after 1867 isn't particularly relevant in this context; as I explained above, a person from Upper Canada/Canada West or Lower Canada/Canada East between 1791 and 1867 was still very much a Canadian. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fran Saleški Finžgar

Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. This entire category tree only has two pages in it: the author and one novel they work, which isn't helpful for navigation. (Notably it has just as many categories as pages). Mason (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fran Levstik

Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. This category only has two pages in it, the author and the list of their works. That's not helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fujiwara no Shunzei

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This category only has two pages in it. One of which is the author's work and the other is the author. That's not helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEPON. Do not merge, the article about the work does not belong in a poets category. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 12

Category:Canadian military personnel from Kelowna

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by location. While a few Canadian cities do have "Military personnel from City" categories (but not "Canadian military personnel from City"), there's no comprehensive scheme in place of doing this across the board for all cities — they otherwise exist only for the major megacities with populations of half a million or more, whose base "People from City" categories were overpopulated into the hundreds or thousands and needed diffusion for size control, and not for every city across the board. But with just 67 articles in Category:Canadian military personnel from British Columbia and just six in Category:People from Kelowna, neither of the parent categories are large enough to need this for diffusability. There's no particularly unique relationship between military service and being from Kelowna per se, so this isn't needed for just three people if other Canadian cities in Kelowna's weight class (Lethbridge, Regina, Saskatoon, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Gatineau, Sherbrooke, Moncton, etc.) don't have the same. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree Kelowna is the third largest locality in BC. Uncontroversial categories exist for the two largest localities (Vancouver and Victoria). It already has three entries which is often considered the criterion for a category, and is likely to gain more in the future as more biographies are created. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the standard minimum size for a category is normally five, not three, and even then size alone doesn't automatically trump other considerations. A category that is failing or violating other rules isn't exempted from those other rules just because you can get its size to five per se.
Secondly, "(Canadian) military personnel" categories don't exist for either Vancouver or Victoria at all yet, so I don't know what you even think you're talking about with that argument.
Thirdly, it's not "ordinal size rank within province" that determines whether such a category is warranted in this tree, but "is the base people-from category large enough to need diffusion or not" — which with just six people in it now and only nine even if these get upmerged to it (well, actually eight, because one of these three people is already in a different occupational subcategory as it is), Kelowna's is not. At present, these categories exist only for big cities where an undifferentiated "People from" category without occupational subcategories would be populated past the 500-article or 1,000-article marks, which is not where Kelowna is sitting, and they do not automatically exist as a matter of course for every small or medium city that had one, two or three military people come from there.
My mistake on thinking there was a category for military personnel from Victoria and Vancouver. It is actually Category:Writers from British Columbia that includes those two cities, and now (since I created it) Kelowna. Which is a good reason to think maybe they should all be in a category, rather than ruling out Kelowna because the other two haven't been created yet.
I could add Trevor Cadieu from Vernon, which is on the same lake as Kelowna and with city limits separated by ~10 km, possibly considered a suburb. Also since this nom, I discovered that George Randolph Pearkes served with the BC Dragoons which is a Kelowna reserve unit (Okanagan Military Museum). I don't want to change the categories of either bio right now in case this is an error and would be perceived as gaming this nom. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found one more notable definitely described as "from Kelowna" by Okanagan Military Museum: Rodney Frederick Leopold Keller. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The smallest other city with a sibling category is both (a) four times Kelowna's size, and (b) about 80 years older than Kelowna, both adding up to the fact it has several hundred more articles in its "People from" tree than Kelowna does, and thus needs to be diffused more than Kelowna's does. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT-related music

Nominator's rationale: An odd entry in Category:LGBT arts, because of the "-related" adjective not shared by any parent category (but shared by some subcategories that may need to be renamed as well). Sister categories at that level (in LGBT arts) are just LGBT dance, LGBT literature, LGBT arts organizations, LGBT theatre, and LGBT art‎. No "-related" anywhere there. Another option would be to rename everything to the form of 'X about Y", although I am not sure if "about LGBT" sounds best (ex. "Music about LGBT"?). For now, removing "-related" from that tree might be easiest in terms of standardization. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I guess it is called "-related" because it also contains LGBT musicians and LGBT musical groups subcategories with artists who do not all create LGBT content. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would note that the category is named the way it is because CFD previously renamed it from the proposed new name to the existing one on the grounds that the music itself doesn't have its own innate sexual orientation, but is merely contextually related to the sexual orientations of people. I would further note things like Category:LGBT-related films, Category:LGBT-related television shows and Category:LGBT-related books, which are also categorized as "LGBT-related", and not just as "LGBT", for the same reason, which means there's a mixture of "LGBT" vs. "LGBT-related" among its siblings rather than this being a one-off outlier. It's a complicated question, for sure, but the reason it's named this way is because of a prior CFD discussion on it, so it's not nearly as clearcut as the nominator makes it out to be. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak keep based on the names of the sibling categories that Bearcat mentions. Mason (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs against capitalism

Nominator's rationale: Generally, our songs by topic categories are 'about' not 'against'. Ex. Category:Songs about poverty. This is also subcat to Category:Songs about consumerism, not Category:Songs against consumerism... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean to delete, it is quite a stretch to say that these songs are about capitalism. I found several that are just critical of modern society in general, some others about the labour movement. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps could be saved after pruning, if anyone can indeed show a song about capitalism. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I can understand why one ould argue that should be deleted because of the nebulous nature, but it is pretty clear that many of these songs have lyrics that are anti-capitalist. Velociraptor888 (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is not clear at all. It relies very much on subjective judgement. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is not an improvement versus the current name. This proposed name suggests the songs are about an anti-capitalist movement while the intent of the category is to have songs that name and shame capitalism. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nigerian books by year

Nominator's rationale: Also delete Category:2015 Nigerian books, Category:2017 Nigerian books

Contains two subcategories, each containing only 1 article. Gjs238 (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transport infrastructure by decade

Nominator's rationale: merge, very complicated tree for only a few subcategories about bridges, canals and lighthouses. Note that this nomination is not about these bridges, canals or lighthouses subcategories, but only about intermediate container categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Congenital amputees

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between specific disability and source of the disability. Mason (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the categorization rules (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization) is that categories that are relevant are based on what criteria are considered defining. I believe that congenital amputee status is considered a meaningful category in the emic (i.e., members) of the limb difference community. E.g., https://www.amputee-coalition.org/resources/amputations-in-childhood/ . This reflects the fact that the lived experience of those with congenital vs acquired amputations is often quite different (e.g., variation in phantom limb experience, the need to actively learn how to function without a limb from birth vs learning as an adult, the use of prosthetics vs not [prosthetics are less frequently used by those with congenital limb differences]). I am aware of this through my extensive involvement with the limb difference community. It can also be observed by a read of the discussions of amputees and those with limb differences (e.g., one of many examples here: https://www.reddit.com/r/amputee/comments/zl8rdk/looking_for_insight_into_child_amputee/).
Note also that there is a Wikipedia page for congenital amputees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_amputation) which per categorization rules is an important signal that a category is defining. Calculatedfire (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also meant to add- there is a precedence set for amputee categories based on the current categories presented (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Amputees). Certainly congenital amputees is just as or probably notably recognized as per current Wikipedia guidelines (e.g., having its own Wikipedia page) than other categories (e.g., there is no page German amputees; "Works about Amputees" is certainly not a defining characteristic of much of the included media. This is not to say that these other categories should be removed, but rather, to show that congenital meets the required threshold of defining. Calculatedfire (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think you'll be able to make a more compelling case if you review WP:EGRS/D which gives clearer rules for intersections with disability and other characteristics (gender, race, sexuality etc). Could you show me where having a wikipedia page about a condition means that "per categorization rules is an important signal that a category is defining"? Because I don't think that is sufficient to have a wikipedia page to ensure that it could be a category. Mason (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean to oppose, I may be mistaken but at first glance I don't think there is a trivial intersection at stake. Congenital amputation is being born without a limb, which is a "thing" in itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But is it defining for individuals? I'm open to having my mind changed, but I don't think people tend to have the lead of the article stating that they are a congenital amputee. If anything, the leads will be about amputees who acquired their disability through a headline grabbing fashion. Now, I'm well aware that there is literature on differences between acquired and congenital disabilities, and that has implications for interventions as well as well-being.
    However, I still don't think that "reliable sources [...] regularly describe the person as having th[e] characteristic". Fuller quote from Wikipedia:EGRS/D
    >"People with disabilities, intersex conditions, and other medical or psychological states or conditions, should not be added to subcategories of Category:People with disabilities, Category:Intersex people or Category:People by medical or psychological condition unless that condition is considered WP:DEFINING for that individual. For example, there may be people who have amnesia, but if reliable sources don't regularly describe the person as having that characteristic, they should not be added to the category."
    Mason (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, here I did some more research:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorizing_articles_about_people under "Specific Intersections":
    "At all times, the bottom line remains can a valid, encyclopedic main article be written for this grouping?"
    There is a main article on this subject as I noted in my original response.
    Thank you as I am learning to navigate this process. Calculatedfire (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as constituted, though open to other alternatives if somebody's got a better idea. The distinction obviously hasn't been upheld all that well in the past, but today there is greater recognition than there used to be that there is a qualitative difference between being born with a congenital limb difference and the later loss due to injury or disease of a limb one previously had. It is, for example, one of the reasons why we moved Category:Amputee sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople with limb difference about a year and a half ago, so that the terminology was more inclusive. Medical literature is stricter on the distinction now than it used to be, referring to congenital limb difference rather than congenital amputation; people with congenital limb differences are more outspoken about the differences; even media try harder now to recognize and respect the distinction (even if they're not always perfect); and on and so forth. So really, we should either allow the category system to uphold the distinction, or pick an alternative term like "people with limb difference", instead of continuing to use "amputees", if consensus really wants to collapse it. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings Downtown Portland, Oregon

Nominator's rationale: --Another Believer (Talk) 14:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It's the "Downtown" that distinguishes this category. Portland is a major city with many distinct neighborhoods. It would be helpful to look up buildings by neighborhood, rather than lumping every building in the city together. Thanks. Pickwiki (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pickwiki: If you're going to create subcategories, then I'd suggest Category:Buildings and structures in North Portland, Oregon, Category:Buildings and structures in Northeast Portland, Oregon, Category:Buildings and structures in Northwest Portland, Oregon, Category:Buildings and structures in South Portland, Oregon, Category:Buildings and structures in Southeast Portland, Oregon, and Category:Buildings and structures in Southwest Portland, Oregon, based on Category:North Portland, Oregon, Category:Northeast Portland, Oregon, Category:Northwest Portland, Oregon, Category:South Portland, Oregon, Category:Southeast Portland, Oregon, and Category:Southwest Portland, Oregon. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, rename to Category:Buildings and structures in Downtown Portland, Oregon. No opinion on whether than warrants a category. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery I've proposed a different way to subcategorize above, if you are interested in revisiting this discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions

Nominator's rationale: Technically all G13 eligible AfC submissions are candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions. I see little reason to isolate this category since the latter category will give a larger list for users to find a draft and update so it does not meet G13. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 15:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A merge closure was overturned per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 4.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 16:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose These are two categories for two very specific and different use cases. The Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions tracks not only drafts that are 6 months of inactivity, but also 5 months of inactivity. This category is specifically for AfC reviewers and other editors to rescue these drafts, if the topic is notable or has turned notable, before the drafts hit the guillotine block at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions, which is an outright CSD category that is meant for draft of 6 months of inactivity and above. In my experience, the Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions category has been used by well-meaning editors, and if there are dummy edits made nefariously, these editors should be surfaced at an appropriate forum. Merging the categories will not resolve the behavioural issue, they will just monitor the CSD category more rigorously to make the dummy edits before an admin can action on it. – robertsky (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is meant to contain drafts of more than 5 months old then the category name is obviously not clear enough. The category is currently empty, so is anyone actively using it? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a bit of a misnomer to say that because it is empty no one is "actively using it"; the category is automatically populated based on the age of the draft; if there are no drafts that are old enough then it will be empty (hence the {{empty category}} tag). Given that we have (literally) hundreds of drafts submitted every day, and only a fraction of those are ever worked on past their initial decline, I would say that someone is keeping an eye on it to make sure that drafts worth keeping are saved, and drafts worth nuking are then G13'd. Primefac (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category is probably never populated. Note that quarry:query/25817 yields 115 drafts as of now, while this is supposed to replicate the category content. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That quarry was last run in 2018... Primefac (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It also, as of about thirty seconds ago, has three pages in it. Primefac (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Just so I don't have to keep updating this page, it has 1 pages as of the time of last refresh. Primefac (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertsky: I believe you are thinking of Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions (5-6 months), which is a different category from this one (6+ months). See Template:AfC submission/draft (lines 22-23) or the description on each category's page. SilverLocust 💬 07:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverLocust thanks for clarification. I was/am still recovering from effects of a flu, after having travelled for half the month for various conferences. In this case, I would question if there is indeed a need to have two separate categories for the same purpose. – robertsky (talk) 09:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robertsky, the intention is to have a category for pages that are eligible for G13, and a category for pages that have been nominated for deletion under G13. I've asked Liz and Explicit to comment since they've been deleting G13 pages straight out of this category, which might give a better indication of how best we could utilise it if it's kept. Primefac (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I have notified Liz and Explicit about this discussion, since they seem to be patrolling it and directly deleting pages from it. Primefac (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 11

Category:MSI nettops

Nominator's rationale: Only one article in category. Upmerge to relevant categories. Gonnym (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rihard Jakopič

Nominator's rationale: Delete for now: This eponymous category only has the artist and a pavilion that is named after them. Such a category, with two pages is unhelpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now: categories like redirects are WP:CHEAP. Maybe the category will be populated in the future. Do you see no prospect for expansion of this right now unhelpful category? Awesome Aasim 21:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jakopič is well known artist in Slovenia and in future the category will likely contain Slovenian streets named after him. Category is useful to me. A09|(talk) 12:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles about streets named after an artist do not belong in a category anyway, as these articles do not provide any information about the artist. The streets may be listed in the article about the artist though. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEPON, and the two articles are already directly interlinked. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't object to deletion of this category. It only contains two articles besides the eponymous one. If there are more articles created on the artist about some of his paintings (which are notable but I don't expect it will happen right away), the category may be recreated. Thanks for the notification. --TadejM my talk 22:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coaches Kerala Cricket Team 2023

Nominator's rationale: One-entry category for a non-defining characteristic. We do not exhaustively subcategorize cricket coaches for the individual year they worked, particularly given that sports teams normally only have one coach at any given time, and thus each category would have only one entry (or perhaps two if a coach got fired and replaced partway through the season, but never, ever enough to actually surpass minimum size requirements for categories). And even if this category were justified, this wouldn't be its correct name anyway. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cartoonists by country templates

Nominator's rationale: Only contains 1 template which is already within Category:Comics creator navigational boxes. – Fayenatic London 21:00, 3 May 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, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States National Recording Registry albums

Nominator's rationale: The same rationale as last time: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 28#Category:United States National Recording Registry albums. I still see no reason for this category to be active and it is still redudant to Category:United States National Recording Registry recordings. Even if all the album articles were listed under the United States National Recording Registry albums category, that would just leave songs and other miscellaneous records under the United States National Recording Registry recordings category. It is really a crime to have all the inducted recordings under one category? QuasyBoy (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point Espngeek (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, otherwise upmerge per Marcocapelle. Like all participants in these two CfDs, I'm not clear what the issue is. Not all recordings are albums, so there isn't an obvious redundancy here. But like the sole participant in the previous CfD, I'm not sure if these really make sense as categories rather than a list. -- Visviva (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former universities and colleges of Jesuits

Nominator's rationale: The current name is not only awkward and not parallel to the name of the related category for current Jesuit institutions ("Jesuit universities and colleges") but its meaning is also unclear. ElKevbo (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone has a (legitimate) concern that "Former Jesuit" is also ambiguous - does it mean "a university or college that was once a Jesuit institution but is no longer a Jesuit institution" or "a Jesuit university or college that is now closed" ? - then "Formerly Jesuit universities and colleges" would resolve that ambiguity. The category does currently include institutions in both of those situations so this may be important. ElKevbo (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Can you please say more about "the distinction between current and former Jesuit is also not enormously important." In my mind, it's a very important distinction as it indicates a very important shift in the institution's mission, organization, and support. ElKevbo (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an entirely different subject and you're welcome to establish that category if you feel strongly about it but it doesn't seem terribly relevant to the discussion at hand. And I completely disagree that "the category is primarily useful to learn about the history of the Jesuits" as its primary use is to identify colleges and universities who are identified with that particular religious order. It's less about the history of that order and more about the intended function and role of these colleges and universities.
"Every university or college will eventually be closed or taken over" doesn't seem like a very helpful or productive perspective at all. Every religion will eventually fade into disuse or change until it's unrecognizable. The sun will eventually explore destroying all life and structure on the planet. The universe will eventually fade into heat death. None of that is very useful when considering what we should or should not do here and now in this encyclopedia. ElKevbo (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of South Asian descent

Nominator's rationale: The boundaries of South Asia are not well-defined. Beyond the central regions of the Indian Empire, there is significant inconsistency in which additional countries are considered part of South Asia. Clear demarcations—whether geographical, geopolitical, socio-cultural, economic, or historical—between South Asia and other Asian regions are lacking. Aldij (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: Asia is a huge continent. I see this as creating more confusion when making categories than having them separate. The geographical boundaries can be debated but it does not change that some reliable sources including sources close to the author refer to the subject as of "South Asian" descent. Awesome Aasim 21:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, in the history tree for before 1947, the term "India" is mostly used to encompass the current territory of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. "South Asia" might be a better alternative than "India". Marcocapelle (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Regardless of the variability in definition of "South Asia" in the real world, Wikipedia has solved the problem for its own purposes. We have numerous articles and categories relating to "South Asia". The 8 countries we include are listed at South Asia. It is untrue that we lack a clear demarcation. To help with the issue of users not being aware of which countries are covered, we could copy and paste the list of 8 countries into the top of each category listed above. If there is a valid rationale for merging, it's not the one presented above. Nurg (talk) 09:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia intends to follow the real world, not to set its own standards. Of these 8 countries, Afghanistan is very questionable as it is often counted as part of Central Asia, but the other 7 are ok. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have an opinion on whether Afghanistan should remain in South Asia or be moved to Central Asia. "Wikipedia has solved the problem for its own purposes" for now. It can change to a different definition of 'South Asia', but that's a separate debate and I probably wouldn't be interested enough in it to participate. But the nominator's rationale that the boundaries of South Asia are not well-defined is not true for our purposes. We have a very clear definition, albeit it is not immutable. Nurg (talk) 01:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless this is a proposal to upmerge all intermediate regional categories into Fooian people of Asian descent categories, for consistency. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would oppose such a proposal as well because geography. South Asians are culturally and linguistically different from East Asians and Middle Eastern Asians. Distance does a lot to culture. Awesome Aasim 20:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Carib people

Nominator's rationale The term "Carib" is ambiguous as it can be used to refer to either the Kalinago (Island Caribs) or the Kalina (Mainland Caribs). Despite both being commonly called "Caribs", the Kalinago and the Kalina are different peoples with different languages and cultures. There isn't a single "Carib" group encompassing both the Kalina and Kalinago. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is clear, but is deletion the best solution? What about splitting to Kalinago and Kalina? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century Algerian photographers

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge for now. This category is only has one person in it and doesn't help navigation. Mason (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Students in Mauritius

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one page in this category, which is unhelpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 10

Category:Random Pages Tests

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary Capitalization; Consistency With Wikipedia:Random pages test Queen of Hearts (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Drakengard

Nominator's rationale: There seems to be enough articles for a split, with 11 going to Nier and 7 going to Drakengard. Bringing to CFD as I am uncertain in this split, and with Nier not having a series article yet. Category:Nier would also likely be a subcategory of Category:Drakengard. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Drakengard still concerns both series and is solely titled "Drakengard". If it is split off into a Nier series article I'd have no qualms with this, but it's putting the cart before the horse. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think a series article needs to be created before a category is created. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rhino Records albums

Nominator's rationale: Rhino Records was renamed to Rhino Entertainment. Same company shouldn't have separate categories. Add all three renames to Category:Rhino Entertainment. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gruppo API

Nominator's rationale: Category contains 1 eponymous article and 1 redirect, which is targeted to the same eponymous article. Gjs238 (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-denominational

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC/U#not-based * Pppery * it has begun... 18:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not about the name, it is about the fact that Non-denominational is not a denomination. There are over 2000 other Wikipedians in Category:Christian Wikipedians who did not specify a denomination.Marcocapelle (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only in the way that agnosticism is not a religion, non-binary is not a gender, and rejection of a sexual orientation label is not a sexual orientation. There is a difference between not specifying something and rejecting or not identifying with it (also non-denominational is not specific to Christianity). However, as the only editor in this category has been blocked, I no longer oppose deletion. Peter James (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People educated at Alcester Grammar School

Nominator's rationale: Superseded by the list at Alcester Grammar School#Notable alumni, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: a list on a single article is no reason to reject a category accomplishing the same task in a different area of the site. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we want duplicating information though ?, Why do we need an under-populated category when a list within an article does the same job ?, Also do you have any sort of link that explicitly states duplicating information is fine because if you do I'd happily close this. –Davey2010Talk 00:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess this is one of things I will never understand, How is a duplicate category "complimentary" when it's literally a duplicate??, Why do we need 2 things of the same thing ?, what is achieved or what is the end goal in having 2 of the same thing ?, I don't get it I truly don't.
Nonetheless Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates are not considered duplicative renders my whole arguement moot so I guess my only option here is to withdraw, Thank you for providing that guideline it's greatly appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 10:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Categories are not superseded by lists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People educated at De La Salle College Dundalk

Nominator's rationale: Superseded by the same list at De La Salle College Dundalk#Notable alumni, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: a list on a single article is no reason to reject a category accomplishing the same task in a different area of the site. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we want duplicating information though ?, Why do we need an under-populated category when a list within an article does the same job ?, Also do you have any sort of link that explicitly states duplicating information is fine because if you do I'd happily close this. –Davey2010Talk 00:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean to delete, attandence of a particular secondary school is not a very defining characteristic of an individual person. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my reply to Peter James here, I guess this can be withdrawn although for the record I'm not happy about it nor do I see a point to having duplicate information... But if EN wants duplicate information for the sake of having duplicate information then who am I to get in the way of that. –Davey2010Talk 10:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Categories are not superseded by lists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People educated at Coláiste an Phiarsaigh

Nominator's rationale: Unneeded category - Only 2 entries which I've added to the school article, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: a list on a single article is no reason to reject a category accomplishing the same task in a different area of the site. Plus, there are now twice as many entries as there were at time of proposal. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we want duplicating information though ?, Why do we need an under-populated category when a list within an article does the same job ?, Also do you have any sort of link that explicitly states duplicating information is fine because if you do I'd happily close this. –Davey2010Talk 00:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean to delete, attandence of a particular secondary school is not a very defining characteristic of an individual person. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my reply to Peter James here, I guess this can be withdrawn although for the record I'm not happy about it nor do I see a point to having duplicate information... But if EN wants duplicate information for the sake of having duplicate information then who am I to get in the way of that. –Davey2010Talk 10:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Categories are not superseded by lists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nance Family

Nominator's rationale: Only three entries and no others to add. Not necessary to have a family category when this is the most there will ever be in it. SportsGuy789 (talk) 04:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the articles are already directly interlinked in the body text of the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:14th-century French Sephardi Jews

Nominator's rationale: 3x upmerge for now. It's not helpful for navigation to diffuse 14th/13th century sephardi jews by nationality when theres only one or two people in the category Mason (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete, one article is about a Jew who wasn't of Spanish origin, the other about an ex-Jew who wasn't French. Generally the concept of French Sephardi Jews does not make much sense before 1492 (Alhambra Decree). Marcocapelle (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 9

Category:Rebel princes

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D: main article princely rebellion. NLeeuw (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alt proposal rationale by Marcocapelle (opposed speedy rename): this is a category of princes, not so much of rebellions. Perhaps split. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beauty pageant contestants from Lagos

Nominator's rationale: Non-notable intersection User:Namiba 19:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Splendor artists

Convert Category:American Splendor artists to article American Splendor
Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme of Category:Artists by comic title or some such and this is analogous to WP:PERFCAT. Just make sure they are all listed (with citations) at the article on the comic. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that this is a useful category as it includes people not usually associated with their artwork, such as Alan Moore and Joyce Brabner. American Splendor was a unique title in many ways, given it was written by a single person but with dozens of different artists; it seems fitting that it merits a relatively unique category.
As a compromise, what if the category was just converted to "Category: American Splendor", not specifying artists? stoshmaster (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If artists are purged the category will become empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant was convert this category simply to "American Splendor" and it will house all things related to American Splendor, including the writers, artists, the film, and all related books (if they have separate articles) stoshmaster (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a defining characteristic of the subjects in this category. Moving this to article space is a good compromise between instant deletion and keeping. As a preliminary measure the category content may be copied to Talk:American Splendor before the category is deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I again propose that this category be rethought/renamed to Category:American Splendor where it will encompass all things related to American Splendor, including the writers, artists, the film, and all related books (if they have separate articles) -- stoshmaster (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Third-person view

Nominator's rationale: I've created this one few minutes ago, but maybe the name should be analogous to Category:First-person video games? Consider the existence of Category:First-person shooters and Category:Third-person shooters, with only the first having a parent category outside shooter games (until my creation). Both have main articles. However, third-person view has a redirect to an article section, while first-person view goes to a disambig, sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: what other content are you planning to add to this category? That will provide the answer to the question. If topic articles are going to be added then "view" seems the right name. If only video games are going to be added then "video games" is the obvious right name. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there isn't anything going to be added on a short term then the category might as well be deleted, because of lack of content. It can be recreated when it is more clear what sort of content there is. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now without prejudice per Marcocapelle. I can't think of anything else to add either. There are lots of other games that are third person, but that is either WP:NONDEFINING because virtually no other game of that genre (say, RPG, survival, puzzles etc.), uses first-person view, uses bird's eye view or isometric view (e.g. RTS games), or you can switch between first and third person (sometimes even second person). "Third-person shooter" is the only commonly used term in video gaming that I know of. NLeeuw (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Armenian screenwriters by century

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which isn't helpful for navigation. (Even if a 2nd category were made, it still wouldn't be helpful as this is the only category in the in parent) Mason (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. By the way the subcategory covers the century that is probably the least interesting to people who study history of literature. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The problem here is that Category:21st-century Armenian screenwriters is using the standardized {{Screenwriters by nationality and century category header}} framework — but that template autogenerates an artificially-transcluded "[Country-named-in-this-category] screenwriters by century" as a standard part of its formatting. But that can't be left to sit there redlinked, so either it has to exist regardless of any size issues, or we have to wrap the template in {{suppress categories}} to bork its category generation and then manually file Category:21st-century Armenian screenwriters in the other categories that still exist. But that would defeat the entire purpose of using the standardized template in the first place, and would have the side-effect of stranding that category from the Category:Screenwriters by nationality and century tree.
    I'm not at all wedded to this being essential, and have personally wrapped many category-generating templates in the suppress categories wrapper when necessary, but just wanted to point out that there are "standardized formatting" considerations here beyond size.
    Really, it's more a question of whether Category:Armenian screenwriters need any by-century categorization yet — with only six people in the 21st-century category and only 20 in the parent, it's not clear that subbing them out for century is needed at all — but if the 21st-century category does exist, then this is automatically imposed and transcluded by the template as a standard and expected parent for it, so the question is really less about the need for this than it is the need for a 21st-century category to exist at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bearcat, I'm not sure how the this comment is relevant to the nomination at hand. And, for the record, it isn't the case the FOOian occupation by century needs to exist. That category is only added if it exists, otherwise, the category is added to FOOian screenwriters. Mason (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a person who works regularly with cleaning up redlinked categories at Special:WantedCategories, I have to deal with new redlinked categories autogenerated by occupation header templates of this type all the phunking time. So just telling me that they suppress redlinks isn't convincing when I routinely see hard evidence that they don't. Bearcat (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have examples of this that are recent (like since April 6th)? Because each time there's been an red link, I've added a fix to address it [5]. The present code exclusively uses resolve category redirects and checks if the category exists before it adds it. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would really like to see it so that I can figure out what is not working as intended. Mason (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nigerian gay writers

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 or 2 articles, too small to aid navigation. All are already in the appropriate sub-categories. User:Namiba 15:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated places on the Underground Railroad

Nominator's rationale: Specific buildings which served as stations on the Underground Railroad are absolutely defined by it but an entire town, city or county is usually not. In some cases, certain locales like New Bedford, Massachusetts were such hubs of the Underground Railroad that they should be kept in the main category but that can be done on a case by case basis. User:Namiba 15:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep These are historically related places. They were certainly defining for these places during the historical period involved here: 1840s and 1850s in the United States. These illegal activities were something that many people in a place were at least silently aware of and did not bring to the attention of law enforcement. In many cases, the articles do not point to a specific building(s) so there is no use in thinking that will keep tying these together, as they should be. Hmains (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it defining though? In most cases, no. Neither Portland, Maine nor most other cities are not defined by the fact that they had a stop in the Underground Railroad. For cities which are defined as such, they can and should be categorized within the tree. If you can show otherwise, I will withdraw the nomination.--User:Namiba 17:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Caribbean people by descent‎

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename for consistency with their subcategories which are all "by descent", as well as for consistency with Category:North American people by descent at the top of the tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:09, 9 May 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:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia

Nominator's rationale: no accurate reliable sources to verify such a classification, even the category descroption says "This category is not necessarily indicative of total loss of population, traditions, language or culture - each specific case may have particular individual contexts" that its unable to be clearerly define or even confirm that the launguage, culture, people, knowledge, country is actually extinct Wikipedia should not be categorising as such. Gnangarra 13:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnangarra The category description can be changed. If articles can use past tense words like "were" and "was" in reference to a tribe, I'm not seeing why the word "extinct" is out of question. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is the issue of using the "tribes" to decsribe Indigenous Countries, Cultures and People in Australia is inaccurate at best racist at worst. The term itself implies a lot of colonial misinformation and a distinct lack of understanding of Indigenous Cutlures in Australia. The use of past tense in words like were or was is also not an indicator of the Indigenous Countries, cultures, languages or peoples continuation. Very specifically by calling a Country extinct that frees the restriction of cultural protocols applying when working on with Indugenous Cultural materials. All countries are still in existance and are represented through Land Councils who manage everything from protocols on entering a country, to land rights. My reasoning is not playing words games its saying that the assumption of being extinct is a misnomer, even in languages and cultures where a recent Language conference in Queensland a professor was luaghed off stage when he stated that a language was extinct yet multiple people stood up and spoke the language. Without rocksolid gold plate sources published within the last 4 years the label of extinct is a false narrative derived from the recent history wars, and anti landrights campaigners. The other issue we have is the Australian Bureau of Statistics problematic collection of reliable data as it records just one language spoken not all In the context of the Census, 'Indigenous' or 'First Nations' results are defined by respondents who have answered that they are of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander background. There are over 230 Australian Indigenous Languages that the Census records which is less than the actual number of Indigenous languages.[6]. Gnangarra 09:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the use of "tribe" isn't my decision. It is used for many articles about Aboriginal Australian groups, so that seems to perhaps be a wider issue worth fixing. What is the continuation of a group like the Toogee? What is the relevant land council? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tribe is not used in Australia, the poor use of terms in Wikipedia articles is one of the many barriers people working with Indigenous cultures struggle to address as shows Wikipedia in a bad light and not respectful of the culture. Basically ticks all the racists, Inforwar, challenge faced out on the street its up to us to lift our standards. Gnangarra 12:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it is questionable if ethnic groups become extinct at all. A language may become extinct for sure, but ethnic groups mostly dissolve in other ethnic groups. - But this comment applies to the whole tree of Category:Extinct ethnic groups. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle Aren't we talking about cultural extinction? Are you defining extinction as the literal death of all group members without any descendants? That seems like an unorthodox interpretation. The Susquehannock people are extinct as a tribe, despite having some descendants in the Seneca-Cayuga Nation. I don't see any contradiction here. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Frustratingly, the term "extinct" seems to be used somewhat inconsistently for both cultural extinction and the death of all group members (at least, from a google search). Is there a better term we could use to distinguish the two? Category:Extinct ethnic groups is currently a subcategory under Category:Human extinction which implies the latter, so perhaps it should be renamed and/or categorized differently if most of the members are groups that are only culturally extinct. Psychastes (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seneca-Cayuga Nation is not an Indigenous Country in Australia, you are making comparisons that are not like for like. Gnangarra 09:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And? I'm addressing Marcocapelle's statement about the broader category tree. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If not an outright deletion then certainly a renaming to be more clear would seem to be a good idea.★Trekker (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What would you propose and why? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Genocide happens. Wishful thinking doesn't change that. "Extinct" is a harsh and ugly word to apply to people; it's natural to recoil in disgust at the idea. It may be very appealing to think that a group "didn't really go extinct" because some of their descendants blended into other groups. But if the group no longer exists as a distinct people with a distinct culture and language, the group really is extinct. Perhaps something like Category:Former Indigenous peoples would be less noxious to the moral sense of the reader. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Genocide happens — In particular Genocide of Indigenous Australians. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mitch Ames That leads to two questions. Is there even one example in all of Australian history of an entire group being murdered without any known descendants? Are there any examples of groups who, through genocidal violence and assimilation, ceased to exist as distinct cultural groups? In both cases, there would have to be terminology to describe a group that once was and now is no longer. If not "extinct", there would still have to be some other description. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, we need to be careful not to conflate "genocide" and "extinction". Genocide does not require killing all of the people - it is defined as "intentional destruction ... in whole or in part". Extinction requires that they all die, but doesn't require intent. There may be an overlap, but they are not the same thing, and neither implies the other. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    agree genocide doesnt equate to extinction. @Bohemian Baltimore perhaps you should start with List of massacres of Indigenous Australians to understand the extent of Geonicidal acts in Australia. Gnangarra 12:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gnangarra Since my meaning apparently wasn't clear; there are genocidal acts of violence which lead to the literal or cultural destruction of peoples. What terminology would you use to refer to groups that have been physically annihilated in entirety through genocidal violence, disease, etc? What terminology would you use to refer to historical groups that may have living descendants but that are no longer culturally distinct due to genocidal violence, etc? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the issue the assumptions here are made based on the use of past tense language in the article, none of them have any reliable sources to support being included in this category. Given that the category itself should be deleted. Gnangarra 13:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gnangarra There are a small number of articles. I do not have a strong opinion on the category, whether it should be renamed or deleted. But I reiterate my question; are there any historical Indigenous Australian groups that can be said to have once existed but that no longer do? What terminology should be used to refer to those historical groups? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mitch Ames I'm not conflating genocide and extinction; I myself belong to a group whose history includes the former but not the latter. But I would question why the word extinction has to automatically mean everybody dies. I don't think a term like "cultural extinction" implies that. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    why the word extinction has to automatically mean everybody dies — Because when we are talking about people, that's what the word means "Extinction is the termination ... by the death of its last member." Admittedly if we are talking about culture we could say that the group is extinct if nobody belongs to it. (If we all gave up editing and WMF deleted Wikipedia, Wikipedians could be said to be "extinct", but most us would still be alive.)
    My main point here is that we should probably not use the word "genocide" in this discussion, because it is neither necessary nor sufficient for "extinction", and is unnecessarily emotive. Yes genocide happened, but that does not determine whether a particular people is extinct or not. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mitch Ames Okay. So what terminology should we use for "cultural extinction"? What terminology should we use to refer to historical groups that no longer exist as distinct cultures? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term "cultural extinction" is not helpful at all. Even if there is no tangible remainders of a culture you never know how much of customs and oral literature have been exchanged with and integrated in other cultures. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but that doesn't mean that the group still exists. So what terminology would you use for a group that once existed and does not now? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: having now been through every article not one defines the culture, people, or country as extinct, sadly Tindale works from 1974 is the primary source in every article and the most recent. The issue there their inclusion is based on whoever started the article using a generic type sentence like according to tindale they (some past tense word) from this area in Queensland. Ironically the only article with recent sourcing is about the current issue of domestic violance in Australia which makes no sense as its in this category. Gnangarra 12:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably you could solve the problem by changing "The Xxxx were ..." to "The Xxxx are ..." (other verb tense changes as appropriate), and providing a reliable source to support the statement of their continued existence. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I could change the wording, but as all the articles are basically say Tindale described these countries on his map as being xxxx, their inclusion in the category isnt based on reliable sources or hints of a reference to Extinct. I suggest the category becomes extinct. Gnangarra 14:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Possible alternatives to "extinct", for the purposes of renaming the category (tree):
    * Historical: we already have Category:Historical ethnic groups of Australia - which possibly should be merged (one way or the other) with Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia. Note that Category:Extinct ethnic groups is a subcat of Category:Historical ethnic groups, so probably Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia (if it remains) should be a subcat of Category:Historical ethnic groups by continent
    * nonextant
    Mitch Ames (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious buildings and structures destroyed in the Muslim period in the Indian subcontinent

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content. They are all Hindu temples. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Conspiracist media

Nominator's rationale: This category contains medias that are mainstream, and most of these are from certain countries. Coddlebean (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete; perhaps upmerge A lot of these are indeed conspiracist media, like InfoWars. But categories are not a place where we can verify their status as conspiracist. That's a job for reliable sources in articles. WP:RSP can help. But verification of membership is probably a time-consuming effort. If we don't do that verification regularly, this risks becoming a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. But perhaps we should upmerge the category to its parents? NLeeuw (talk) 06:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean to delete, considering the fact that many articles are already in a more specific subcategory of Category:Conspiracy theories I don't think this category adds much value in itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep These are not mainstream media; they are something else. Whether or not they are mostly from certain countries is beside the point; they are from wherever they are from. Specific media outlets are quite different from specific theories and, as such, are not (and should not be) in the random set of articles I looked at in Category:Conspiracy theories. Hmains (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, to distinguish between media promoting conspiracy theories and those merely investigating them. Paleontologist99 (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disinformation operations

Nominator's rationale: This category contains medias that are mainstream, and most of these are from certain countries. Coddlebean (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't feel qualified to be a great judge in the matter, but it does seem to be a bit of an WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Disinformation operations definitely exist, but what does that mean exactly for categorisation purposes? Sure, Category:Government spokespersons of Russia spread a lot of disinformation, no doubt about that; but does that make them "operations"? I don't think that makes grammatical sense. Perhaps this category just needs to be Purged? NLeeuw (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge, to begin with. There are nuanced differences between disinformation, misinformation, propaganda and fake news and this category contains all of that. As we have Category:Misinformation, Category:Fake news and Category:Propaganda as well, it would make sense to remove all articles and subcategories from Category:Disinformation operations if they are already in one of the three other trees. After that is done we may re-evaluate what to do with this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support purge Seems like a good approach to begin with. NLeeuw (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support purge and, as for the justification for this delete, these are not mainstream media; they are something else. Whether or not they are mostly from certain countries is beside the point; they are from wherever they are from. And whether or not they are even media is beside the point, since this category is about 'operations'. The same justification has been used into several deletion requests here. Hmains (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hindu temples destroyed by Muslims

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There's really not a need to diffuse this category by perpetrator Mason (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Continental League contributors

Nominator's rationale: No need for parent category, see below. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Continental League

Nominator's rationale: Too little content, all adequately interlinked. See also second proposal above. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Singles by decade by record label

Nominator's rationale: No need to break them up by decade--that would be better handled with a discography anyway--and no need to have the scheme Category:Singles by decade (in the 21st century only) and record label. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, there was already a discussion about this. Sahaib (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philosophers of theodicy

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. I don't think we need to diffuse this category by the specific question in the philosophy of religion, especially since this cateogory only has one person it it. Mason (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, this doesn't seem to be a particularly useful subdivision of Category:Philosophers of religion. Psychastes (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philosophers by ethnicity

Nominator's rationale: per WP:OCEGRS, there doesn't seem to be a reason why philosophers should be categorized by ethnicity Psychastes (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If not deleted, I think that Jewish philosophers‎ should be added to Category:Philosophers by ethnicity. Mason (talk) 13:41, 9 May 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.

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