Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 5
January 5
Category:Catholic universities and colleges in Honduras
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There is only one university in here, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Dual merge per nom, without objection to recreate the category when more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Dual merge (as creator) in the absence of more content. However I reverted your addition of Category:Universities and colleges in Honduras to the article, which is redundant as the article is already in Category:Universities in Honduras. @Smasongarrison: may I ask why you phrase your nominations as splitting instead of merging to all parents, which can be automated? In my understanding splitting is something else, which is when a category combines two or more different notions, and some articles must be manually moved to target category A, some others to target category B, but not both categories (e.g. splitting a category for queens between queens regnant and queens consorts). Place Clichy (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Happy to answer the splitting question. So the twinkle app doesn't at present give an option to merge into two categories, so I've been using split instead. I've made a request that they include the option as there is a template. My reasoning is that it's better to include the additional category at the expense of the wrong verb. Mason (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- I see! Place Clichy (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Happy to answer the splitting question. So the twinkle app doesn't at present give an option to merge into two categories, so I've been using split instead. I've made a request that they include the option as there is a template. My reasoning is that it's better to include the additional category at the expense of the wrong verb. Mason (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Dual merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Educational facilities
- Propose merging Category:Educational facilities to Category:Educational environment
- Nominator's rationale: Overlapping/non-defining category. These are all school-related things, but it's unclear to me how they really differ. Full disclosure, this category was original just in Category:educational buildings, but it contained lots of non-buildings, so I moved it up a level. Mason (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- It was actually originally in Category:Education, though it's been 16 years so I don't remember exactly what pages were put into it at the time. I imagine I intended it to include pages for educational areas or units that were not in themselves buildings.
- As such, being moved to Category:Educational buildings was probably not a good idea. I'm also not sure what "Educational environment" designates. Why not just put it up in Category:Education where it was originally?
- -- Powers T 00:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom and no objection to include the target in the nomination for further upmerge. It is very unclear what these categories are about. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:United Airlines Flight 93 victims
- Nominator's rationale: Largely redundant, no need to separate the hijackers into their own category. If that is done, then it would make more sense to do it the other way, with Category:United Airlines Flight 93 hijackers, rather than having one category for "deaths" and another for "victims" excluding them. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. The term victim (which I lothe) is part of a much larger category tree for Category:Victims of aviation accidents or incidents in the United States AND there is a specific category for Category:Victims of the September 11 attacks, which intentionally excludes the hijackers who are in Participants in the September 11 attacks. Both are child categories of Category:People associated with the September 11 attacks Mason (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Mason. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Batman: Arkham characters
- Nominator's rationale: Feels WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If it were just a list of characters from the Batman: Arkham series (with the articles listed being about the versions from the Batman: Arkham series) that would be fine. This also might be an WP:OVERLAPCAT with other Batman categories. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, these are not Batman: Arkham characters, they're just Batman characters. This category should be populated by specific versions from those games and original characters created for the games, not by what's filled with now. —El Millo (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Surnames of Jewish origin
- Propose renaming Category:Surnames of Jewish origin to Category:Jewish surnames
- Nominator's rationale: Parent categories are Category:Jewish names and Category:Jewish families. Main article is Jewish surnames. There is no such thing as a surname of Jewish origin. These are names adopted by Jewish people via assimilation or which they were forced to adopt in exchange for freedom and, hence, have a VERY diverse origin. The previous form "Jewish surnames" is a better description of the contents of this category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that this was recently discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 21#Category:Surnames of Jewish origin.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)- Comment: @Qwerfjkl, I don't remember commenting on that one but I have and I completely forgot about it! Is opening a Cfd on a previously discussed category is not allowed/frowned upon? Asking so I can be more careful in the future. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Omnis Scientia It depends. In this case the previous discussion was closed as no consensus, so it could be okay, just make sure to avoid a rehash of the previous discussion e.g. by including counterpoints. Qwerfjkltalk 17:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Will do. Thank you! Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Omnis Scientia It depends. In this case the previous discussion was closed as no consensus, so it could be okay, just make sure to avoid a rehash of the previous discussion e.g. by including counterpoints. Qwerfjkltalk 17:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: @Qwerfjkl, I don't remember commenting on that one but I have and I completely forgot about it! Is opening a Cfd on a previously discussed category is not allowed/frowned upon? Asking so I can be more careful in the future. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:People of Soviet descent
- Nominator's rationale: Only has one category layer which, in turn, has people already listed as descended from constitutent countries within the Soviet Union. Delete both. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom Mason (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Delete people of Soviet descent. Keep Israeli people of Soviet descent. As we've recently said elsewhere regarding Ukraine, regime is not usually defining, while nationality is. However, in the particular case of the Soviet Union and Israel, the intersection was culturally significant and has remained so in the descendents of those who escaped from the USSR to Israel. Jahaza (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Merge Category:People of Soviet descent to Category:Soviet diaspora, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. But don't delete, there is no reason to remove the subcat from the diaspora tree (if the subcat is kept). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Israeli people of Soviet descent?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)- @Marcocapelle, but isn't the "Israeli people of Soviet descent" quite vague? It doesn't tell where they are from or whether they are Jewish or not even. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Omnis Scientia: I do not quite see what is vague about it. It does tell that they are from the Soviet Union. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle, but isn't the "Israeli people of Soviet descent" quite vague? It doesn't tell where they are from or whether they are Jewish or not even. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Jewish/Israeli is hardly a major issue here, as there will be few Arabs/Palestinians who would qualify. However there has been a large exodus of Jews from the ex-USSR. Saying they were of Russian descent (or other split) might give us difficulties. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Tyla (South African singer)
- Nominator's rationale: A total of three related articles (one album and two songs) doesn't seem to be enough to justify an eponymous category yet. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose, the category has then been significantly improved. dxneo (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, apart from the eponymous article, the songs and albums (which all link to each other anyway) there is only an article about a tour. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)- Delete per Marco. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Works by Tyla (South African singer). Doesn't warrant an WP:EPONCAT, but fits in the Category:Works by South African musicians tree. --woodensuperman 16:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- But the tours and files aren't works, so pruning would be needed. Take those away though and a "works by" parent isn't even necessary. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, sure, it would need pruning, but it would still hold three subcats. --woodensuperman 15:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- But the tours and files aren't works, so pruning would be needed. Take those away though and a "works by" parent isn't even necessary. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Lists of women government ministers by country
- Nominator's rationale: Every content uses "female", not "women". —Panamitsu (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)- Oppose. The parents all use women. See Category:Women government ministers by country Mason (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)- Oppose per Smasongarrison. --AlexandraAVX (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Lists of women government ministers by portfolio
- Nominator's rationale: Every content uses "female" not "women" —Panamitsu (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)- Oppose. The parents all use women. See Category:Women government ministers by country Mason (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- But all the contents use "female", such as List of female defence ministers. This is quite similar to WP:C2D. —Panamitsu (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- It is clearly a conflict between C2D and C2C. To me it would make more sense to rename the articles, since we obviously have no children in these lists. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- But all the contents use "female", such as List of female defence ministers. This is quite similar to WP:C2D. —Panamitsu (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. The parents all use women. See Category:Women government ministers by country Mason (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedia categories named after writers
- Nominator's rationale: I fail to see how this category isn't 100% redundant to Category:Writers, basically even copying eevery subcategory in its tree. Isn't this just pointless redundance? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 02:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. These are maintenance categories for eponymous categories. Mason (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but it's a complete redundant copy of the category tree for Writers, and I can't see any use. What on earth is this maintaining? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs. 08:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose; it clearly says this is a maintenance category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. These are maintenance categories for eponymous categories. Mason (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- I guess the original intention was that biography categories shouldn't contain any eponymous subcategories because these subcategories do not contain biographical articles. But this is not maintained, not even documented as a guideline as far as I know. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Timrollpickering: do you know more about the history of this? Marcocapelle (talk) 10:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Prada exclusive models
- Propose merging Category:Prada exclusive models to Category:Models (profession)
- Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between brand and occupation Mason (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support in principle in the spirit of WP:OCAWARD, but just delete because the articles are already in a models by nationality subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment if it's to be merged anywhere it might as well be merged into Category:Prada. Trillfendi (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- This would be inappropriate due to WP:COPSEP. --woodensuperman 16:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: parallel with WP:PERFCAT --woodensuperman 16:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Members of the Galizien division
- Propose renaming Category:Members of the Galizien division to Category:Members of the Galicia Division
- Nominator's rationale: WP:COMMONNAME: this is the most common short name for the division,[1][2] capitalized as a proper name. The short name is appropriate as this category includes members both while it was the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) (1943–45) and 1st Galicia Division of the Ukrainian National Army (1945). —Michael Z. 15:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Google Scholar results:
- —Michael Z. 16:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC) Added more results. —Michael Z. 04:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment "Galacia" is the English word for this region. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Galicia is English (not Galacia); galizien is German. —Michael Z. 04:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Assassinated businesspeople
- Propose merging Category:Assassinated businesspeople to Category:Businesspeople
- Propose merging Category:Assassinated Turkish businesspeople to Category:Turkish businesspeople
- Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between occupation and manner of death. If kept, should be renamed Murdered businesspeople. Mason (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Delete All members are likely already in another subcategory. Most were murdered for reasons unrelated to their jobs. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Rename Category:Assassinated businesspeople to Category:Murdered businesspeople, re-parent, and merge the Turkish subcat into it. This sounds like an acceptable intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Perfectly normal category within parent Category:Assassinated people by occupation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Piotrus can you talk some more about why businesspeople are a perfectly normal category for assassination as opposed to being murdered? Mason (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Mason I don't see what makes them different from others (activists, cartoonist, mass media people or others in Category:Assassinated people by occupation). For some it can be quite defining - people get assassinated by business rivals, for example, or for being connected to politics and crime while being primarily seen as businessmen. Consider for example Suspicious deaths of Russian businesspeople (2022–2023), Boris Berezovsky (businessman) or Brett Kebble. That said, I also support creation of parent Category:Murdered businesspeople (ex. for Paul Massey (gangster)) as suggested above. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Piotrus can you talk some more about why businesspeople are a perfectly normal category for assassination as opposed to being murdered? Mason (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, nothing wrong with this category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcelus (talk • contribs) 09:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlastertalk 17:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Piotrus. Dimadick (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)- Either keep this category, or rename to Category:Murdered businesspeople. Strongly oppose deleting or merging this category. AHI-3000 (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Upmerge the Turkish sub-cat. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:7th-century Arabian Jews
- Propose splitting Category:7th-century Arabian Jews to Category:Arabian Jews and Category:7th-century Jews
- Nominator's rationale: I don't think that this specific ethnic group needs to be diffused by century Mason (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose, these are Jews who are almost exclusively mentioned in the Quran. This is a distinct group of articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- In that case, I think the category should be renamed to capture that defining feature. Mason (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlastertalk 18:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)- What about Category:Arabian Jews that interacted with Muhammad, modeled off of Category:Arabian tribes that interacted with Muhammad? Mason (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- A few did not interact with Muhammad but with his successor. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ok... do you have an alternative suggestion that captures the defining feature? I think that we shouldn't have the "century" element in the same as it isn't a defining feature. Mason (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- A few did not interact with Muhammad but with his successor. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- What about Category:Arabian Jews that interacted with Muhammad, modeled off of Category:Arabian tribes that interacted with Muhammad? Mason (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Province of Massachusetts Bay
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep and build out hierachy. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Centuries in the Province of Massachusetts Bay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Centuries in Massachusetts
- Propose merging Category:Decades in the Province of Massachusetts Bay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Decades in Massachusetts
- Propose merging Category:Years in the Province of Massachusetts Bay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Years in Massachusetts
- Propose merging Category:Disestablishments in the Province of Massachusetts Bay by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Disestablishments in Massachusetts by century
- Propose merging Category:Establishments in the Province of Massachusetts Bay by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Establishments in Massachusetts by century
- Propose merging Category:Disestablishments in the Province of Massachusetts Bay by decade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Disestablishments in Massachusetts by decade
- Propose merging Category:Establishments in the Province of Massachusetts Bay by decade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Establishments in Massachusetts by decade
- Propose merging Category:18th century in the Province of Massachusetts Bay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:18th century in Massachusetts
- Propose merging Category:18th-century disestablishments in the Province of Massachusetts Bay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:18th-century disestablishments in Massachusetts
- Propose merging Category:18th-century establishments in the Province of Massachusetts Bay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:18th-century establishments in Massachusetts
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT. It is by no means useful to have navigation for pre-statehood and post-statehood Massachusetts be separated solely due to a difference in name. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Province of Massachusetts Bay is not the same entity as Massachusetts (nor are they same as Massachusetts Bay Colony, Plymouth Colony, or Province of Maine). Each entity as it's own history and combining them into one category is anachronistic and simply creates a mess. They also do not overlap as each entity has its own years and area, so other than sharing a somewhat similar name, how do they overlap? Gonnym (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- On a related note, all changes to the categories should be restored to the status quo while this CfD is ongoing. Gonnym (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Province of Massachusetts Bay is not the same entity as Massachusetts (nor are they same as Massachusetts Bay Colony, Plymouth Colony, or Province of Maine). Each entity as it's own history and combining them into one category is anachronistic and simply creates a mess. They also do not overlap as each entity has its own years and area, so other than sharing a somewhat similar name, how do they overlap? Gonnym (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Reverse merge, to the entity that existed in that period. Nom is right that there shouldn't be two parallel trees. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle can you explain what the "reverse merge" here means? Gonnym (talk) 08:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- I guess he means e.g. removing Province decade categories from Category:Decades in Massachusetts. That parent currently holds a continuous series from Massachusetts Bay Colony (1620s–1680s) through Province of Massachusetts Bay (1690s–1780s) to Massachusetts (1780s–present). See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_4#Years_in_Massachusetts for a more detailed history. – Fayenatic London 09:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Ok. If that is the case then restoring Category:Decades in the Province of Massachusetts Bay to its non-redirect state, which was how it was before yesterday. Gonnym (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- I guess he means e.g. removing Province decade categories from Category:Decades in Massachusetts. That parent currently holds a continuous series from Massachusetts Bay Colony (1620s–1680s) through Province of Massachusetts Bay (1690s–1780s) to Massachusetts (1780s–present). See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_4#Years_in_Massachusetts for a more detailed history. – Fayenatic London 09:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle can you explain what the "reverse merge" here means? Gonnym (talk) 08:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think I see what has happened here. When I implemented the June 4 CFD,[3] I redirected some template-generated parent categories, rather than build separate hierarchies for each historical period. E.g. as the Colony only existed within one century, there is no need for it to have a separate Category:Decades in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. I also saw to the merger of C17 in Massachusetts into Category:17th century in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. However, Aidan721 and Gonnym considered that there was sufficient content to build out more of the categories for the Colony and the succeeding Province, and did so. Keep and build out the hierarchy, e.g. adding Category:Years of the 17th century in the Province of Massachusetts Bay into Category:Years in the Province of Massachusetts Bay, and split Category:Years of the 18th century in Massachusetts to Category:Years of the 18th century in the Province of Massachusetts Bay. – Fayenatic London 12:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Note, that regarding your commit that you deleted, I think part of the fact that I missed it has to do with the usage of {{resolve category redirect}} which doesn't help when creating these trees as it doesn't show what the missing categories are. Gonnym (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- If you happen to look in Category:Decades in Massachusetts, the Colony decades show up there, whereas the Province decades are now obviously missing/sub-catted, but I take your point. For another example, it was not obvious that Category:Years of the 18th century in the Province of Massachusetts Bay is redirected. Do you have any suggestions about managing this? I don't even know if a PetScan could be written to find such cases affecting a hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 22:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. Remove {{resolve category redirect}}} which is misused here as it obstructs the automatic red-link categories that should be created. Gonnym (talk) 10:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry Gonnym, I don't agree with that proposal. In very many cases resolving redirects is helpful, e.g. Category:Decades in Burkina Faso should not be split to Category:Decades in Upper Volta. There are many cases where using the subcat name all the way up would result in a tiny category hierarchy that would not be useful for navigation. However, I accept that I should have created a hierarchy here rather than merging them using redirects. – Fayenatic London 22:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Gonnym this is a courtesy ping about Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_30#History_of_Ceylon_by_period where I propose to make extensive use of resolving such category redirects. – Fayenatic London 16:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. Remove {{resolve category redirect}}} which is misused here as it obstructs the automatic red-link categories that should be created. Gonnym (talk) 10:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- If you happen to look in Category:Decades in Massachusetts, the Colony decades show up there, whereas the Province decades are now obviously missing/sub-catted, but I take your point. For another example, it was not obvious that Category:Years of the 18th century in the Province of Massachusetts Bay is redirected. Do you have any suggestions about managing this? I don't even know if a PetScan could be written to find such cases affecting a hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 22:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Note, that regarding your commit that you deleted, I think part of the fact that I missed it has to do with the usage of {{resolve category redirect}} which doesn't help when creating these trees as it doesn't show what the missing categories are. Gonnym (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment -- This is a case where governmental changes have meant that WP creates multiple successive categories for what is in fact much the same place. The province was created in 1691, but the merger of several preceding colonies, particularly Plymouth Bay, after the dissolution of the short-lived (and opposed) Dominion of New England. On the other hand, MASS lost control of what is now Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to the French. Maine became a separate state in 1820. To some extent this is about how we parent specific categories. I would suggest we have a single tree for Colonial MASS, which may parent sibling Plymouth Bay and Massachusetts Bay categories. We have had a similar problem over modern states that have changed name, where the parent for the modern name includes categories related to its preceding identities. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)- @Qwerfjkl can we stop with the relisting? There is no arguments and from reading this, Marcocapelle, Fayenatic London and myself are all in agreement. Gonnym (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Gonnym really? I don't see that. Qwerfjkltalk 16:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Qwerfjkl Fayenatic said to
Keep and build out the hierarchy
, which is the current tree with fixes, which I agree with. Marcocapelle saidReverse merge
which Fayenatic explained is moving the Province categories from the state tree to their own tree, which is the same as what Fayenatic said. Gonnym (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Qwerfjkl Fayenatic said to
- @Gonnym really? I don't see that. Qwerfjkltalk 16:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Qwerfjkl can we stop with the relisting? There is no arguments and from reading this, Marcocapelle, Fayenatic London and myself are all in agreement. Gonnym (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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:Multi-purpose stadiums in the Americas
- Nominator's rationale: Not useful. Same rationale of many "Americas" categories that have been deleted. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom as the child categories are already in the correct "by continent" category. Mason (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, the subcategories are already siblings in the by-continent tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Vegetarian
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. ✗plicit 14:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:NOTDEFINING. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 - already deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 8#Category:Vegetarians. --woodensuperman 14:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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:Politicians born in Kocaeli
- Nominator's rationale: "Born in" is not defining in this context. When it comes to politicians, the defining geographic intersection is not where they were born, it's where they did politics. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Useless categories, also instances of WP:NARROWCAT and WP:OCLOCATION. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Mason (talk) 20:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Merge first to Category:People from Kocaeli. The current category is too specific. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Merge the first to Category:People from Kocaeli (none of the nominated articles are already in that category); delete the second per above. HouseBlastertalk 17:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- @HouseBlaster, @Peterkingiron, Category:People from Kocaeli is a redirect to Category:People from İzmit. I assume you mean merge to that? Qwerfjkltalk 16:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Correct. Thanks for catching that! HouseBlastertalk 17:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- @HouseBlaster, @Peterkingiron, Category:People from Kocaeli is a redirect to Category:People from İzmit. I assume you mean merge to that? Qwerfjkltalk 16:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This has been open and stalled for a few days now so I decided to relist which I hope is the right course of action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merging to Category:People from İzmit is a reasonable alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:1990s massacres in Algeria
- Propose renaming Category:1990s massacres in Algeria to Category:Massacres during the Algerian Civil War
- Nominator's rationale: rename per List of massacres during the Algerian Civil War and there is not a set of massacres in Algeria by decade. This was opposed for speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
copy of speedy discussion
|
---|
|
- @AHI-3000 and Smasongarrison: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose. There are numerous countries in Category:Massacres in the 1990s Mason (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Smasongarrison: there are a few more, but they are likewise named e.g. Category:Massacres in the Bosnian War. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support, see my reasoning in the speedy discussion. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose. There are numerous countries in Category:Massacres in the 1990s Mason (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Edo literature
- Propose merging Category:Edo literature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Edoid languages
- Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only the eponymous article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: A very inappropriate nomination. There are several categories that grew from a single member to 10s and 100s. This category is likely going to grow and I see this inappropriate. There are several other things I am going to write about that will fit into this category. Also, the Edoid languages category is not even related to the concept of Edo literature. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- If articles appear we can always recreate the category. For now it is a matter of a crystal ball whether that is going to happen. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support merge as its unhelpful for navigation in its present state. I see nothing about this nom that is inappropriate. Mason (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- This category now contains two members and a subcat and as such my Keep rationale stands. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support merge as its unhelpful for navigation in its present state. I see nothing about this nom that is inappropriate. Mason (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- If articles appear we can always recreate the category. For now it is a matter of a crystal ball whether that is going to happen. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: A very inappropriate nomination. There are several categories that grew from a single member to 10s and 100s. This category is likely going to grow and I see this inappropriate. There are several other things I am going to write about that will fit into this category. Also, the Edoid languages category is not even related to the concept of Edo literature. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Cemeteries in the District of Columbia
- Nominator's rationale: dual merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. A speedy downmerge proposal was opposed. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
copy of speedy discussion
|
---|
|
- @Aidan721, Jahaza, and Gonnym: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support merge per nom. Mason (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Subordinators by language
- Propose merging Category:Subordinators by language to Category:Subordinators
- Propose deleting Category:Declarative subordinators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) added 12/22
- Propose deleting Category:Interrogative subordinators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as this entire category tree is a mess. Mason (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Unhelpful for navigation to only have one page in here Mason (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Now it has two. Brett (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Great! But that doesn't fix the other problem that the parent category only has this category in it. Mason (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Now it too has two. Brett (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Great! But that doesn't fix the other problem that the parent category only has this category in it. Mason (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Now it has two. Brett (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Merge per nom, two redundant category layers on top of each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Has obvious potential to grow. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. What Piotrus says. -- Hoary (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. --Brett (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Creating categories with single items does not solve the problem. @Brett why are you making categories with singles page in them? like, Category:Interrogative subordinators and Category:Declarative subordinators. This entire category scheme is a mess. Can someone (@Piotrus or @Hoary) please explain what the growth potential is? Mason (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- There are many other languages, thus the potential for Romanian interrogative subordinators, Ojibwa interrogative subordinators, etc. Brett (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- But they don't exist right now. Potential for growth is not a metric used for evaluating categories (small cat no longer exists as a policy). Mason (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Mason, your nomination read(s): Upmerge for now. Unhelpful for navigation to only have one page in here. Seems pretty reasonable. But by the time I noticed the existence of this little discussion, the category already had two pages. So your nomination, however reasonable and constructive, seemed obsolete when I first read it. Now you're asking about the creation of single-item categories. The question's reasonable enough, and arguably Brett was a naughty fellow for perpetrating just such a category. (Without thinking too deeply about the matter, I have a mixed opinion.) But I wonder why you're bringing up the matter here and now. If what you're now proposing is (i) that the entire category scheme is a mess plus (ii) some better alternative, then please make this explicit. -- Hoary (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining your reasoning, that's helpful. I was asking because I didn't understand how potential for growth was related to the fact that this category is unhelpful for navigation. I think that both Category:Interrogative subordinators and Category:Declarative subordinators, should be deleted and that Category:Subordinators by language should be merged into the parent. I've updated the nomination Mason (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Brett@Marcocapelle@Piotrus, I've updated the nomination per @Hoary's request. Mason (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining your reasoning, that's helpful. I was asking because I didn't understand how potential for growth was related to the fact that this category is unhelpful for navigation. I think that both Category:Interrogative subordinators and Category:Declarative subordinators, should be deleted and that Category:Subordinators by language should be merged into the parent. I've updated the nomination Mason (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- There are many other languages, thus the potential for Romanian interrogative subordinators, Ojibwa interrogative subordinators, etc. Brett (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Creating categories with single items does not solve the problem. @Brett why are you making categories with singles page in them? like, Category:Interrogative subordinators and Category:Declarative subordinators. This entire category scheme is a mess. Can someone (@Piotrus or @Hoary) please explain what the growth potential is? Mason (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- One thing about the directory tree that clearly is not satisfactory as it stands is that Category:Declarative subordinators currently has but one member, That. The band-aid/elastoplast solution would be to hurriedly add the stub for a second. I'm not offering to do this -- not just because I loathe stubs, but because the article That, for starters, currently lacks a single mention of "subordinator" (even though, yes, it is a prototypical subordinator, for which please see The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, passim). If the article were decent, its terminology could easily be updated. However, its section "Modern usage" is worthless. For me, fixing misinformation is more pressing than adding more information (let alone worrying about categorization). (Oh, and also, that "is not a thing": there are two ⟨that⟩ /ˈðæt/ homonyms, as far apart from each other as Galicia is from Galicia.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Also support deletion of the two added categories, they are currently not helpful for navigation either. Possibly merge them to Category:English grammar. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:James Matisoff
- Nominator's rationale: Small category where not much in this category is defining or helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Terms coined by James Matisoff to Category:Linguistics terminology
- Propose deleting Category:Students of James Matisoff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Not defining. Mason (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- If kept, Propose merging Category:Works by James Matisoff to Category:James Matisoff
- Nominator's rationale: Not helpful for navigation to only have one work in here. Mason (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- At least delete the students category. Students categories are mainly useful if most of the subjects are only known as someone's student without notable works of their own. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Category:James Matisoff per WP:EPONCAT; Merge Category:Terms coined by James Matisoff per nom; Delete Category:Students of James Matisoff per WP:OCASSOC; Keep Category:Works by James Matisoff as part of established "works by" tree. --woodensuperman 13:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Marine fauna researchers of the Gulf of California
- Nominator's rationale: Make it clearer the the research topic is Marine fauna of the Gulf of California Mason (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Khanqahs by country
- Propose renaming Category:Khanqahs by country to Category:Khanqahs
- Nominator's rationale: Only two categories in here and there doesn't exist a category called Khanqahs Mason (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Rename and re-parent per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Sufi shrines. Per the reasoning above, I suggest using this parent category, with country-level children categories using the common local name for these institutions. Place Clichy (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Place Clichy's alternative makes a lot of sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Sufi tekkes in Albania
- Propose merging Category:Sufi tekkes in Albania to Category:Khanqahs in Albania
- Nominator's rationale: merge, overlapping categories, see article Khanqah to which Tekkes redirects. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom Mason (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Reverse merge. There's actually List of tekkes in Albania and List of Bektashi tekkes and shrines, where most of these buildings are called tekke. Khanqah § Etymology explains that these institutions, having the same function of a Sufi place of gathering, have different local names i.e. zawiya in North Africa, tekke in Turkey, Albania, Bosnia and other parts of the former Ottoman Empire, khanqah or dargah elsewhere e.g. Persia and South Asia. See also Category:Tekkes in Greece or Historical tekkes, zawiyas, and dergahs in Istanbul, which use local names. The parent category is Category:Sufi shrines. I would suggest using that as a parent, and using the local name for country-level categories. Place Clichy (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Place Clichy's alternative makes a lot of sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Harbourmasters of Australia
- Propose renaming Category:Harbourmasters of Australia to Category:Australian harbourmasters
- Nominator's rationale: rename, we categorize people who went to Australia as Australians, even if they were not born there. This was opposed for speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
copy of speedy discussion
|
---|
|
- @Smasongarrison and Jahaza: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support rename. Thanks for making the nom. Mason (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- support as long as the spelling remains the same JarrahTree 09:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Food Network Star contestants
- Nominator's rationale: Textbook WP:PERFCAT --woodensuperman 10:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. It doesn't seem to me that this fails PERFCAT because the people who are listed were actively on Food Network Star; they didn't make one-shot apperances. If this category is going to be deleted, then I guess I can look forward to all categories being deleted from its parent category Category:Participants in American reality television series. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- I just noticed that you also nominated Category:Top Chef contestants. Is it just a coincidence that you are nominating food reality-based categories for deletion? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. It doesn't seem to me that this fails PERFCAT because the people who are listed were actively on Food Network Star; they didn't make one-shot apperances. If this category is going to be deleted, then I guess I can look forward to all categories being deleted from its parent category Category:Participants in American reality television series. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Roman Catholic theologians
- Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic theologians to Category:Catholic theologians
- Nominator's rationale: rename and re-parent to Category:Catholic religious workers, there is no distinction between Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic theology. If this goes ahead, I will nominate the subcategories too. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think that there are a number of important distinctions between Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic theology... First and foremost the position of the Holy Spirit within the trinitarian structure, no? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- No, that is Eastern Orthodox, that is something different. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- My Maronite friend disagrees, he says that you are presenting the Catholic Church's position but many Eastern Catholics don't agree. Of course that is just hearsay, I would love to see a source for the claim that there is no distinction between the theologies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- There is no source for Eastern Catholic theology because it does not exist. Of course individual people may not agree with everything that their church teaches, but that it is not what theologians categories are about. Even theologians may not agree with everything that their church teaches. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- If one exists and the other does not there is a massive distinction between the two. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong. I mean to say that there is no separate Roman or Eastern Catholic theology. E.g. there is one Catholic catechism. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think that there are a number of important distinctions between Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic theology... First and foremost the position of the Holy Spirit within the trinitarian structure, no? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. This is merely an observation as it's not a subject I will pretend to know anything about, but Category:Old Catholic theologians exists, if this makes a difference. --woodensuperman 13:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Old Catholic Church is a different church than Catholic Church. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- So are the Eastern Catholic churches... They're different churches from the Catholic Church. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- No, that is absolutely wrong. The Catholic Church consists of the Latin Church and 23 Eastern Catholic churches. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Seconding this comment. Category:Old Catholic theologians should remain separate. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Rename as nom. Old Catholic theologians are very often Catholic theologians or priests who parted from the Catholic Church on topics such as papal infallibility. Ignaz von Döllinger is an example among many. So Catholic doctrine and debates over it are at the heart of what defines an Old Catholic theologian, it is not different. There is ample reason to put them in a parent Category:Catholic theologians. As for Eastern Catholic theologians, while they adhere to the theology of the Catholic Church, they are just not Roman Catholics. Place Clichy (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think that it is helpful to make the distinction between types of catholicism for diffusion purposes. Mason (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- So does this mean you would agree to make Category:Catholic theologians a parent of Category:Roman Catholic theologians and Category:Old Catholic theologians? Re: Eastern Catholic theologians, I don't think there are enough articles to populate a separate hierarchy (especially with a double century/nationality structure), but they can be placed directly in the parent Catholic theologians category in the absence of a more specific one. Place Clichy (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. I think that they'd both be parented by Category:Catholic theologians. My concern is more about ways to diffuse the very large Category:Roman Catholics by century, which this rename would impact. Mason (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- So does this mean you would agree to make Category:Catholic theologians a parent of Category:Roman Catholic theologians and Category:Old Catholic theologians? Re: Eastern Catholic theologians, I don't think there are enough articles to populate a separate hierarchy (especially with a double century/nationality structure), but they can be placed directly in the parent Catholic theologians category in the absence of a more specific one. Place Clichy (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think that it is helpful to make the distinction between types of catholicism for diffusion purposes. Mason (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Top Chef contestants
- Nominator's rationale: Textbook WP:PERFCAT. These people are notable for being chefs. --woodensuperman 09:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Alpha Phi Omega members
- Nominator's rationale: Membership in Alpha Phi Omega is not a determining condition. Naraht (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment This category is empty. Next time, just tag it CSD C1 as an empty category and it will be deleted after a week. Liz Read! Talk! 19:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Understood.Naraht (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Chess gambits
- Propose merging Category:Chess gambits to Category:Chess openings
- Nominator's rationale: As pointed out in several places on wikipedia, chess opening terminology is inconsistent and not a useful basis for classification. The Queen's Gambit arguably is not a gambit, the Two Knights Defence, which usually involves the sacrifice of a pawn, arguably is. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, if some articles do or do not belong in the category then that should be discussed at article talk pages. Generally these openings are described as gambits. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I see no value in subcategorizing chess openings in this way. Far more useful to have all openings in the same category. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Currently there are both Chess opening and Gambit which means that so far the community has deemed these two topics worth having their own article. This means that having two categories is also fine. Gonnym (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I see no value in subcategorizing chess openings in this way. Far more useful to have all openings in the same category. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Propose changing to non-diffusing. Everything that is a gambit should also be an opening. This will enable readers to find an opening without knowing whether it is a gambit, or indeed, without knowing what a gambit is or what the word "gambit" means. With this change, the Gambit category can be useful without also being confusing. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. There is a simple way to determine whether an opening belongs to this category or not - if it has a word "Gambit" in its name - then it's a gambit. If people generally don't accept the c4 pawn in the Queen's Gambit and then hang on to it, it doesn't mean that it's not a gambit, there are lines where White just can't win it back. Also, I think that making it a non-diffusing category, as Bruce leverett pointed out, makes sense. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Chess opening nomenclature is a matter of tradition, not systematic classification. It arose haphazardly. The Queen's Gambit is definitely not a "gambit", White can even regain the pawn immediately by 3.Qa4+ (though it's not the best move). Several lines that *do* involve actual sacrifice of material don't have the word "gambit" in their name. This is why names of openings are not a useful guide to their classification, and subdividing chess openings into different classes on wikipedia is a bad idea. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Deltaspace42: I had guessed that you had used a syntactic, rather than semantic, classification of openings. I don't think this is necessarily the best classification, but I am glad that we are on the same page w.r.t. making it non-diffusing.
- In pre-Wikipedia chess literature, a gambit was any opening variation that starts with a sacrifice of material. This would include Fried Liver Attack and Vienna Game, Frankenstein-Dracula Variation.
- I have no trouble classifying Queen's Gambit as a gambit. In variations like 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 a6, White has sacrificed a pawn, and it seems to have happened on move 2. But the Catalan opening leads to similar positions with Black hanging onto a pawn on c4.
- I see that Queen's Gambit Declined is classified as a gambit, whereas Slav Defense is not, but they are both defenses to the Queen's Gambit (siblings, so to speak). This is potentially confusing. I am not sure how this can be fixed in a non-confusing way. Should the responses to a gambit be classified as gambits? Then that would include Slav Defense. Or should they not be so classified? Then that would include Queen's Gambit Accepted and Queen's Gambit Declined, not to mention Queen's Gambit Declined, Cambridge Springs Defense. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Bruce leverett: We can also create a subcategory related to Queen's Gambit opening variations and include there Slav Defense and other openings. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- What would be the point of that? How would such a category improve the encyclopedia? Quale (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Bruce leverett: We can also create a subcategory related to Queen's Gambit opening variations and include there Slav Defense and other openings. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Chess opening nomenclature is a matter of tradition, not systematic classification. It arose haphazardly. The Queen's Gambit is definitely not a "gambit", White can even regain the pawn immediately by 3.Qa4+ (though it's not the best move). Several lines that *do* involve actual sacrifice of material don't have the word "gambit" in their name. This is why names of openings are not a useful guide to their classification, and subdividing chess openings into different classes on wikipedia is a bad idea. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Alternatively if Category:Chess gambits is kept then Category:Chess openings should be non-diffusing as suggested by Bruce leverett. If the parent cat is non-diffusing then I don't care do much what others do with a gambits subcategory, although some of the suggestions here are embarrassing for an effort trying to produce and maintain a serious encyclopedia so I'll explain a bit. The chess openings category has existed for 20 years (since 2004); the chess gambits category for two weeks (since December 26, 2023). The WP:CHESS community could have created a gambits subcategory at any time if it thought it was useful, but tellingly it did not.
- The suggestion that a chess gambits category should contain chess opening articles whose titles contain the word "Gambit" is shockingly poor for multiple obvious reasons. 1) Some chess gambits including important lines such as the Marshall Attack do not include the word "Gambit". 2) The names of chess openings are not defining characteristics, and categories are supposed to be defining characteristics. You might just as well create a category Names of US states that end in "ia". 3) Because chess opening names are not defining characteristics there is no main article for chess opening names containing the word "gambit". You can observe that list of chess gambits does not use this definition of gambit which is found nowhere except on this discussion page.
- A different suggestion is that editors could have pointless arguments on multiple chess opening article talk pages whether the article belongs in a gambits category. The only people competent to make this determination are experienced chess players and they are telling you right here that they have no interest in doing that. It serves no purpose; the problem is entirely artificial. It was created only because someone decided to change the categorization of chess opening articles in a way that is not helpful and was not desired by the editors who actually do constructive work on these pages. Just the fact that it can be difficult to know whether a page belongs in the category is a sign that it is not helpful. When it's too hard for a reader to know whether a page is in a category then that category might not be good, especially when it serves no purpose.
- Finally, although the "chess opening gambit" usage is common even with chess experts, strictly speaking it is chess opening variations that are gambits rather than the openings themselves. In common parlance "chess opening" is often used to mean "chess opening variation" (and similarly "opening" for "opening variation"), but this is the kind of shorthand experts often use in many fields because there is no chance of confusion when speaking to other experts. (Worse still there is no clear division between an opening and a variation. In many cases the distinctions were made centuries ago before chess was studied in a systematic way.) In many cases we have articles on the gambit variations, but in other cases we don't and the gambits are discussed in the parent opening article. You could decide that the parent articles don't go in the gambits subcategory even though they discuss gambits, or you could create redirects for all the gambit variations and put the redirect pages in the gambits category. It would be simpler to go back to December 25 when there was no gambits category. Because it is actually opening variations that are gambits this classification is much better suited to a list, and we already have list of chess gambits. (That list article has other problems and is frustrating to chess editors, but those issues are different than the ones with the gambits category). Quale (talk) 05:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Given that for 20+ years of wikipedia history this category didn't exist, the default assumption should be in favour of the status quo, not in favour of the newly intoduced and imprecisely defined category. This new category will lead to pointless arguments about what is or isn't a "gambit", and for what purpose? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- @MaxBrowne2: This category existed before, under the name of "Gambits", but was removed recently. I created this category and only after that I checked the Gambits category, I even posted a question on the Help desk, but didn't get an answer on what to do: Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2023_December_26#Category:Chess_gambits_(Unanswered_-_please_help,_I_don't_want_to_wait_until_someone_WP:G4's_this_category_;_;) Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- It occurred to me that we should look to our sources, i.e. to chess literature. I have seen quite a few opening books and references that classify the openings as "queen's pawn games", "king's pawn games", or "flank openings", or similar terminology. So I could hardly object to three categories like those. On the other hand, I do not recall any opening reference with a separate section for gambits, and searching for "gambit chess book" I found only a couple of decades-old books, one by Keene, another by Burgess. It looks like by creating a "gambits" category we are breaking new ground, which explains why it is so difficult. I am considering striking my earlier vote in favor of one to support. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Bruce leverett:
searching for "gambit chess book" I found only a couple of decades-old books, one by Keene, another by Burgess
- What about this book "Gambit Chess Openings" by Eric Schiller, 2001 from the Gambit article? Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)- Note that this is not the first time this has come up. Experienced chess editors really don't want this category. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_21#Category:Gambits MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- I do not have a copy of Schiller's book, nor was I able to find a review of it online, although Tony Miles wrote a famous two-word review ("Utter crap") of one of the companion volumes, "Unorthodox Chess Openings". I would reserve judgment, for now. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Quale that the syntactic classification, i.e. categorizing openings by their name, is ridiculous. And, in agreement with MaxBrowne2, I see that it's difficult to impossible to arrive at a good semantic classification. The fact that I disagreed with him over the classification of Queen's Gambit is an illustration of this, but there are many other examples. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Bruce leverett:
- It occurred to me that we should look to our sources, i.e. to chess literature. I have seen quite a few opening books and references that classify the openings as "queen's pawn games", "king's pawn games", or "flank openings", or similar terminology. So I could hardly object to three categories like those. On the other hand, I do not recall any opening reference with a separate section for gambits, and searching for "gambit chess book" I found only a couple of decades-old books, one by Keene, another by Burgess. It looks like by creating a "gambits" category we are breaking new ground, which explains why it is so difficult. I am considering striking my earlier vote in favor of one to support. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- @MaxBrowne2: This category existed before, under the name of "Gambits", but was removed recently. I created this category and only after that I checked the Gambits category, I even posted a question on the Help desk, but didn't get an answer on what to do: Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2023_December_26#Category:Chess_gambits_(Unanswered_-_please_help,_I_don't_want_to_wait_until_someone_WP:G4's_this_category_;_;) Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Korean kings
- Propose merging Category:Korean kings to Category:Korean monarchs
- Propose merging Category:Kings of Later Baekje to Category:Later Baekje people and Category:Korean monarchs
- Propose merging Category:Kings of Silla to Category:Silla monarchs
- Propose renaming Category:Kings of Taebong to Category:Monarchs of Taebong
- Propose merging Category:Kings of Daegaya to Category:Gaya monarchs
- Propose merging Category:Kings of Geumgwan Gaya to Category:Gaya monarchs and Category:Geumgwan Gaya people
- Nominator's rationale: Non-defining use of "king" per category description: "A category of Silla monarchs who used "king" as the regnal title." The category creator has made a lot of these kinds of category, despite warnings. Mason (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Upmerge Category:Kings of Later Baekje, Category:Kings of Taebong and Category:Kings of Daegaya, only one or two articles in these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Mythological nurses
- Nominator's rationale: Extremely small category. In theory upmerge for now, but the only page is already in Characters in Greek mythology Mason (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- There are several (many?) mythological "nurses" i.e. nursemaids, these include:
- Pleiades (Greek mythology) nursemaids to Dionysus
- Adrasteia nursemaid to Zeus
- Ida (nurse of Zeus) nursemaid to Zeus
- Cyllene (nymph) nursemaid to Hermes
- Hypsipyle, nursemaid to Opheltes
- And there are undoubtedly more. Seems like a plausibly useful category. Paul August ☎ 15:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Nursemaids (which are more like wetnurses) are not the same as nurses, who are medical professionals. Mason (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not in an ancient Greek context. Paul August ☎ 01:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- But this category is broader than Ancient Greece, it says "Category:Mythological nurses", not "Category:Mythological nurses in Ancient Greece". If it stays, it should be renamed to nursemaids or wetnurses or something to that effect. Mason (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- I would be in favour of renaming the category to "Nurses in Greek mythology" (or similar), and recategorising it accordingly, but I still think "nurses" is preferable to "nursemaids" or "wet-nurses", per my comment below. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- If we keep this category then I suppose that would be a better name, although I do think the term "nurse' would probably apply in any ancient context. Paul August ☎ 01:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- I would expect so. I also wouldn't be opposed to retaining the current title and adding mythological figures from other cultures. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- If we keep this category then I suppose that would be a better name, although I do think the term "nurse' would probably apply in any ancient context. Paul August ☎ 01:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- I would be in favour of renaming the category to "Nurses in Greek mythology" (or similar), and recategorising it accordingly, but I still think "nurses" is preferable to "nursemaids" or "wet-nurses", per my comment below. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- But this category is broader than Ancient Greece, it says "Category:Mythological nurses", not "Category:Mythological nurses in Ancient Greece". If it stays, it should be renamed to nursemaids or wetnurses or something to that effect. Mason (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not in an ancient Greek context. Paul August ☎ 01:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Nursemaids (which are more like wetnurses) are not the same as nurses, who are medical professionals. Mason (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. There are numerous examples of such figures in Greek mythology, and "nurse" seems to be the term sources use most frequently to describe them. For instance, see Gantz's Early Greek Myth, Hard's Routledge Handbook of Greek Mythology, or Grimal's Dictionary of Classical Mythology, which all use "nurse" much more than they do "wet-nurse" or "nursemaid". – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as a valid category with value to readers. As Paul August and Michael Aurel have already pointed out, these persons are usually referred to simply as "nurses". The modern distinction is not generally applied to mythological occurrences, and there is little reason to suppose there would be confusion over that. P Aculeius (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Mythological Greek royalty
- Propose renaming Category:Mythological Indian royalty to Category:Royalty in Indian mythology
- Propose renaming Category:Mythological Greek royalty to Category:Royalty in Greek mythology
- Nominator's rationale: parent is Characters in Greek mythology by occupation Mason (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom, and also rename all these categories accordingly:
- Category:Mythological Indian royalty to Category:Royalty in Indian mythology
- AHI-3000 (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about the Hindu versus Indian renames. Mason (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Smasongarrison: I just thought that "Indian" would be more broadly inclusive than just "Hindu". AHI-3000 (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- While that seems well-intentioned, I'm not sure that there's a significant amount of non-Hindu mythology that's distinctly Indian. Most of India's other major religions originated elsewhere, or have little or no mythology associated with them, at least as the term is commonly understood in English. While there's some mythology associated with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (some adherents might object to the term), none of these are distinctly Indian, or have mythology connected to India. Zoroastrianism is primarily rooted in Persia. Baha'i, also rooted in Persia/Iran, is a modern fusion of Islam and Hinduism. Sikhs and Jains don't really seem to have any mythology in the traditional sense; Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism, and to the extent that Indian Buddhists incorporate deities in their practices—and not all do—they are usually Hindu deities. Some of the other religions are variants of Buddhism, often developed elsewhere. I do see a few indigenous or tribal religions, but they seem to have very small numbers of adherents, and it's not clear whether they have distinct mythologies involving royalty. That said, "Hindu mythology" probably would be fine as a title. P Aculeius (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @P Aculeius: on the other hand, is there not Hindu mythology that's not related to India, but to, say, the Khmer Empire or Bali? In India, we do have Meitei mythology and Category:Meitei mythology. That said, I believe that Hindu mythology is a fine title and does not need renaming to Indian mythology. Should Category:Kings in Meitei mythology be placed in Category:Kings in Indian mythology, which should therefore be removed from Category:People in Hindu mythology? Place Clichy (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- That seems like a valid point. I looked through the religions listed in the table at the top of "Religion in India" to see whether there were distinctly Indian but non-Hindu mythologies, and did not see this one listed, presumably because the number of adherents listed (235,000) would constitute a religious minority of only 0.016% of India's population, given the 2023 estimate. That's relevant, but not necessarily determinative. There could also be others. I'm generally in favour of more categorization, not less; so if there are enough individuals to be worth distinguishing mythological Meitei royalty from mythological Hindu royalty, then the proposed title change from "Indian mythology" to "Hindu mytholdy" makes sense. P Aculeius (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @P Aculeius: on the other hand, is there not Hindu mythology that's not related to India, but to, say, the Khmer Empire or Bali? In India, we do have Meitei mythology and Category:Meitei mythology. That said, I believe that Hindu mythology is a fine title and does not need renaming to Indian mythology. Should Category:Kings in Meitei mythology be placed in Category:Kings in Indian mythology, which should therefore be removed from Category:People in Hindu mythology? Place Clichy (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- While that seems well-intentioned, I'm not sure that there's a significant amount of non-Hindu mythology that's distinctly Indian. Most of India's other major religions originated elsewhere, or have little or no mythology associated with them, at least as the term is commonly understood in English. While there's some mythology associated with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (some adherents might object to the term), none of these are distinctly Indian, or have mythology connected to India. Zoroastrianism is primarily rooted in Persia. Baha'i, also rooted in Persia/Iran, is a modern fusion of Islam and Hinduism. Sikhs and Jains don't really seem to have any mythology in the traditional sense; Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism, and to the extent that Indian Buddhists incorporate deities in their practices—and not all do—they are usually Hindu deities. Some of the other religions are variants of Buddhism, often developed elsewhere. I do see a few indigenous or tribal religions, but they seem to have very small numbers of adherents, and it's not clear whether they have distinct mythologies involving royalty. That said, "Hindu mythology" probably would be fine as a title. P Aculeius (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Smasongarrison: I just thought that "Indian" would be more broadly inclusive than just "Hindu". AHI-3000 (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about the Hindu versus Indian renames. Mason (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Rename per WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Halls
- Propose merging Category:Halls to Category:Rooms
- Nominator's rationale: Non defining. If kept, it needs to have more parent categories Mason (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment some of these are buildings instead of rooms. The category is non-def because it contains both rooms and buildings, but as such, cannot be directly merged into Category:Rooms, as there are buildings in the category. It will need to be a selective merge, and some will need to be merged into the buildings category tree instead -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Latin panegyrists
- Propose splitting Category:Latin panegyrists to Category:Panegyrists and Category:Ancient Roman poets
- Nominator's rationale: Dual merge as there is only one person in here, and there's no need to diffuse by genre. Mason (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:People from Albania by municipality
- Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category Mason (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Reverse merge to the older page and possibly rename that one. I will tag that page too. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Even better! Mason (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Category:Albanian people by municipality has been emptied which I guess just involved removing the category you're trying to get rid of. Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Fictional Columbidae
- Nominator's rationale: There is also Category:Fictional doves and pigeons, which is the same thing. Kk.urban (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Fictional doves and pigeons per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:People from Garmen
- Propose merging Category:People from Garmen to Category:People from Blagoevgrad Province
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This is the only category in the People by municipality in Bulgaria tree. And it only has 1 page in it, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Gang members by location
- Propose merging Category:Gang members by location to Category:Gang members
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Uzbekistani people by occupation and location
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Alternatively this category and its subcategory may be just deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Suggesting this as an alternate proposal: –Aidan721 (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Uzbekistani sportspeople by location to Category:Uzbekistani sportspeople
- Propose deleting Category:Uzbekistani people by occupation and location
Category:Tajikistani people by occupation and location
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which isn't helpful for navifation Mason (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Alternatively this category and its subcategory may be just deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Suggesting this as an alternate proposal: –Aidan721 (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Tajikistani sportspeople by location to Category:Tajikistani sportspeople
- Propose deleting Category:Tajikistani people by occupation and location
Category:Cambodian people by occupation and location
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge/rename. this category right now only has one category in it which isn't helpful for navigation. Rename this category as there isn't a Cambodian people by location category Mason (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Just delete including its subcategories. These are unnecessary container levels, as ultimately there is only Category:Sportspeople from Phnom Penh that contains articles. I will tag the subcategories too. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Cambodian sportspeople by location
- Propose deleting Category:Sportspeople by city in Cambodia
- Agree in principle with Marcocapelle, but would suggest: –Aidan721 (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Sportspeople by city in Cambodia to Category:Cambodian sportspeople and Category:Sportspeople by populated place
- Ah ok that is correct. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Bulgarian people by occupation and location
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There is only
one2 categories in here, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)