Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions

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

Speedy renaming and merging[edit]

If the category and desired change do not match one of the criteria mentioned in C2, do not list it here. Instead, list it in the main CFD section.

If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.

Use the following format on a new line at the beginning of the list: 

* [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

If the current name should be redirected rather than deleted, use: 

* REDIRECT [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

To note that human action is required, e.g. updating a template that populates the category, use: 

* NO BOTS [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

Remember to tag the category page with: {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 09:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 146 open requests (refresh).

Current requests[edit]

Please add new requests at the top of the list, preferably with a link to the parent category (in case of C2C) or relevant article (in case of C2D).

Opposed requests[edit]

On hold pending other discussion[edit]

Moved to full discussion[edit]

Moved to full Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all of them. Nationality =/= Country. First, a prince of Bohemia, of Austria, or of Bavaria were all considered to be German princes (during the HRE), while it would be difficult to argue that the prince of Bohemia, or of Austria are princes in Germany. Second, one could have been a princess in Denmark, or of the Netherlands, while being of French or of German nationality. I'm pretty much sure that searching a little bit, many of those cases would arise.SFBB (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See for instance Category:Princesses of Orange that you would categorize as Dutch princess...it simply does not work. SFBB (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current discussions[edit]

Shortcut

July 9[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:First women admitted to degrees at Oxford[edit]

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

Eponymous Formula One driver categories[edit]

Included in this nomination are the following categories:
Nominator's rationale: These single-article (minus the eponymous article) Formula One driver eponymous categories are unnecessary per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings and structures by decade 530s‎-990s[edit]

more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge, in this period this is a redundant category layer with only occasional articles next to the religious buildings subcategory. The articles need to be moved manually because some of them are already in e.g. a fortifications by century subcategory or in an establishments by year subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Old style serif typefaces[edit]

Nominator's Rationale: In Vox-ATypI classification#Classicals, Old style serif typefaces can be categorized into 3 subclasses. All of these 3 subclasses has their own categories in French Wikipedia. However, only 2 out of 3 of those French Wikipedia categories has a corresponding category in English Wikipedia:
  1. Venetian (fr:Catégorie:Police d'écriture humane, currently corresponding to Category:Old style serif typefaces)
  2. Garalde (fr:Catégorie:Police d'écriture garalde, currently corresponding to newly-created Category:Garalde serif typefaces)
  3. Transitional (fr:Catégorie:Police d'écriture réale, currently corresponding to Category:Transitional serif typefaces)

I suggest that the Category:Old style serif typefaces be renamed to Category:Venetian serif typefaces. Also, I proposes that any articles that are already in both Category:Transitional serif typefaces and Category:Old style serif typefaces be removed from the Category:Old style serif typefaces (as it's redundant).Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉edits 04:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Ohio Conference football templates[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The American Mideast Conference last sponsored football in 1970 when the conference was known as the Mid-Ohio Conference. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Registrars of the Order of the Garter[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the category.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Malaysia since Independence[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename per parent Category:Contemporary history by country that I just added. Else at least change "Independence" to "independence". Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spelling change - what might seem contemporary in some contexts may not be understood clearly as to the specific starting point is actually contemporary or not JarrahTree 08:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:History of Malaysia (1957–present). That matches most other categories in Category:Contemporary history by country. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more comments on the alt rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename target still needs to be decided upon.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking at both the Indonesian and Malaysian history timelines and the organisation of the periods of time,

the suggested name with date-present is ok. JarrahTree 08:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Phobias[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category contains both anxiety disorders such as claustrophobia and forms of prejudice such as mormonophobia (a redirect to anti-Mormonism). I would like to remove the latter from this category and place them instead in (appropriate sub-categories of) Category:Prejudice and discrimination. gnu57 20:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The immediate proposal has been WP:BOLDly adopted (as it did not actually require a CFD to take place), but the D in CFD is for discussion and I am relisting so that User:Quantling's point can be discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DVD interactive technology[edit]

Nominator's rationale: More common name, I don't hear "DVD interactive technology" as often. Also, the original name omits the usage of "games". QuantumFoam66 (talk) 05:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated places disestablished in New Brunswick in 2023[edit]

Nominator's rationale: All of these relate to a single government reform in this year. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hispanic and Latino American socialists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between specific ethnicity and specific political orientation, per egrs Mason (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


July 8[edit]

Category:Slavs by political orientation[edit]

Nominator's rationale: redundant category that conflates nationalities with ethnicity Mason (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Critics of socialism[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category Mason (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Constitutionalism[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. The category creator really needs to slow down with the creation of narrow/non-defining categories. Mason (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish classical liberals[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Do we really need an intersection with ethnicity and liberal/tarians? This doesn't meet the criteria for EGRS as far as I can tell. And the parent of one of the cats was recently deleted/merged Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_3#Classical_liberals. Mason (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Acquired citizenship[edit]

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

Category:District 1 of Zürich[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Same district Solidest (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jazzland Records (1960) albums[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Not sure why two categories were created, but now releases in two categories belong to the same label. The only other label with a similar name also already has its own category: Category:Jazzland Recordings albums. Solidest (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional villains[edit]

Nominator's rationale: It is always correct to use the word "Villains" only in a fictional context. Such classification is not used in encyclopedias to characterize real humans. Solidest (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it was already nominated for merge once Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 10#Category:Fictional villains, but AHI-3000 did a split again a year ago. Solidest (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bangladesh–Bahrain relations[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Duplicates. Solidest (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boxing matches at Madison Square Garden[edit]

.:* Propose merging Category:Boxing matches at Wembley Arena to Category:Boxing matches in London

Nominator's rationale: Per the recent discussion and WP:OCVENUE. User:Namiba 16:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose Removing these Categories will severely overpopulate the populated place pages User:Sam11333 16:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only one to which that might apply is the Las Vegas Valley and even that won't be massive.--User:Namiba 16:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any doubt on that one!
I can't see the logic in removing the venue categories, given that WP:OCVENUE states that "categories that indicate how a specific facility is regularly used in a specific and notable way" can be appropriate. I would argue that a boxing match falls under that description. Sam11333 (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Including these arenas in the boxing venues category is fine. But OCVENUE and the recent consensus I've cited is very clear "avoid categorizing events by their hosting locations".--User:Namiba

Category:Bengali cinema[edit]

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

Category:Mughals[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This newly created category seems redundant with Category:Mughal Empire and it's many subcats. Gjs238 (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jersey equestrians[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete "Jersey equestrians" and dual merge "Jersey male equestrians" per nom. Only one category layer and one article. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baltic Germans[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Three related categories:

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

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

Category:Thai television series debuts by decade[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This is an umbrella category for a whole slew of subcategories, which each have a slew of subcategories. However, each is sparsely populated. This is a logical area for a navigation template, something that there may be a bot already to populate. I am suggesting we discuss this template with a view to incorporating the whole hierarchy of content into a navigation template. If that discussion reaches that conclusion, then processes should be put in hand to populate the template and depopulate the sub and sub-sub categories, which may then be deleted as empty. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What? Why would we create a template for unrelated entries that users will likely not ever use? This category system is exactly how this should be handled and how it is handled for other countries - see Category:Television series debuts by country and decade. This is a very strange deletion nomination. Gonnym (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cartoon Network Studios pilots and shorts[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There isn't anything related between a short and a television pilot. This might mean there isn't enough content to justify both categories but that isn't a reason to create this unrelated category. Gonnym (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Public art by indigenous artists from the Americas[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, only one article in the category, this is not helpful for navigation to related articles. There is no need to merge, the article is already in other subcategories of the parents. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Urban development in India[edit]

Nominator's rationale: downmerge, no clear distinction, Urban development redirects to Urban planning and there is no tree for Category:Urban development by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom. Gjs238 (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


July 7[edit]

Category:Converts from atheism or agnosticism[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge (or reverse merge), it is unclear how these two categories are different from each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. I think that converts from FOO is supposed to model other religion converts categories. I'd be interested in anyone from the religion/athesist categories chiming in in case we're missing something. Mason (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's part of an overarching category sceme with a certain logic. Former Fooians can become converts to some other religion, e.g. Barism.
  • But if the new religion or lack thereof of the former Fooians cannot be determined, we cannot diffuse them to a subcategory called converts to Barism from Fooism.
  • Or, it may be that a former atheist or agnostic has embraced some form of theism, but not converted to a specific institutionalised or traditional form of it. Category:Converts from atheism or agnosticism is a containercat that currently only allows us to diffuse former atheists and agnostics as converts to Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism. But of course, those are far from the only options on the 'market', so to speak.
I think this indeterminacy, as well as lack of options to diffuse to, is what requires these categories to remain separate. (Honestly, I understand where the idea to merge them comes from, and I had to think for quite some time before figuring out why I had a hunch that it might not be a good idea, and writing this down haha). NLeeuw (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: A good example of a former Fooian whose current religion or lack thereof cannot be determined is Wesley Snipes. Raised as a Christian, converted to Islam, then left Islam, and we don't know what he considers himself these days. The default assumption may be that he is therefore an atheist or agnostic these days, but no RS says that, so such a conclusion is OR.
Similarly, there has been quite a lot of controversy around Antony Flew, a life-long atheist who appears to have embraced some form of theism just before he died and co-wrote a book titled There Is A God with a Christian. That Christian co-author has claimed that Flew converted to Christian theism just before he died, and that the book is "evidence" of Flew's wholehearted, sincere embrace of the Christian religion. Meanwhile, several atheists came out and called foul play, alleging that the co-author put words in Flew's mounth in order to construct a deathbed conversion story that is really convenient for propaganda purposes, and that Flew seems to have not embraced Christianity specifically, but a more general vague theism. Who can say? Flew is not there anymore now to explain. That's why he is in Category:Former atheists and agnostics, but not in Category:Converts to Christianity from atheism or agnosticism, as his religious views just prior to his death cannot be precisely determined, and thus diffused. NLeeuw (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose or widen the scope of the merge. The category Category:People by former religion has quite a few categories in it, including this one, of people by former religions or former non-religion. If we merge this one it would make sense to merge all of them. However, I feel like both categories are useful, as "Convert" categories show what they converted too, while the "Former" categories (which include the Converts as a subcat) are for those where the conversion "destination," for lack of a better word, is unknown. Relinus (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth noting categories like Category:Converts to Christianity, or Category:Converts to Islam, etc. all have many subcategories named "Converts to ____ from ___" which include the subcategories of Category:Converts from atheism or agnosticism, namely Category:Converts to Buddhism from atheism or agnosticism‎, Category:Converts to Christianity from atheism or agnosticism, Category:Converts to Hinduism from atheism or agnosticism‎, Category:Converts to Islam from atheism or agnosticism, and Category:Converts to Judaism from atheism or agnosticism‎. It's not clear how this would be dealt with in the merge proposal. Relinus (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. You explain some of what I was trying to say better than I could. NLeeuw (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not understand the logic. Of course there are people who do not fit a "converts to" subcategory deeper in the tree. But how does it matter whether these people are in a general "converts" category or in a general "former" category? They are both general categories. In terms of widening the scope of the nomination, I am definitely planning to follow up with sibling categories if this goes ahead. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the discussion is on merging the convert/former categories into one category even though they are both needed for the reasons stated above, namely that, as you say, "there are people who do not fit a 'converts to' subcategory deeper in the tree" but who would still fit into the "former" category. Since every religion/non-religion has both a "former" category and a "convert" subcategory, removing one or both for only atheism/agnosticism doesn't make sense. You would need to do the same for all religions, ie. merging Category:Converts from Buddhism and Category:Former Buddhists, etc. (That was what I meant by widening the scope of the merge, however, I would actually oppose that too, since it doesn't make sense either.) Relinus (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Relinus: until your bracket we seem to agree. I already mentioned I will do a follow-up nomination for all religions if this goes ahead. I do not understand why within the brackets you suddenly jump to a different conclusion. Why doesn't that make sense either? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 23:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jurists from Denmark–Norway[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining for the only person in here. Extremely small category with only 1 person, who doesn't have any mention of Denmark–Norway in the text. I urge the category creator to stop making categories that only have one person in them. Mason (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arab businesspeople[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Yet another Arab category that incorrectly conflates ethnicity with nationality. I am not opposed to the general notion of an Arab businesspeople category, but the current contents are only nationality subcategories and Khadija bint Khuwaylid. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palestinian bedouins[edit]

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

Category:Shrines dedicated to empress Jingū[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The "e" in "empress" needs to be in capital to bring consistency with the article on Empress Jingū. MOS:JOBTITLE can be used as a guide to determine when such titles need to be in upper case. Keivan.fTalk 20:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Urban development in Ethiopia[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory and there is no tree for Category:Urban development by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I had used Category:Urban development in India > Category:Urban planning in India as templates when creating these. Gjs238 (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games with expansion packs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Last year, on May 7, 2023. A similar category "Video games with downloadable content" was deleted, and expansion packs are pretty much the same as downloadable content. In turn, this category is probably non-defining. Expansion packs are as common as DLC, and are essentially the same. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd agree with the nominator - having an expansion pack does not always modify the base game, so it's hard to call it a defining feature. Categories should be defining aspects of the subject, not something tangential. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Urban projects in Ethiopia[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No such category tree. Merge to Category:Urban planning in Ethiopia Gjs238 (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brainwashing theory proponents[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Whatever the difference is supposed to be between these two categories is beyond me. As far as I can tell, both categories are about people notable for writing works promoting the legitimacy of the sociological concept of brainwashing/mind control (which are more or less the same thing). This just seems like a slightly less neutral version of the other category made by a banned sock. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete, the articles are already in Category:Researchers of new religious movements and cults and that is exactly where they belong. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle I disagree with this, because brainwashing is actually a sociological debate, not strictly related to cults, that had quite a lot of scientific input. Like half the people in the mind control category have no relation to NRMs/cults at all. Brainwashing as a concept has been discussed in relation to politics, kidnapping (see Patty Hearst), etc. It is its own thing: while it is often brought up in relation to cults that's not its only relevance. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possibly, but the articles in the nominated category are about researchers of new religious movements and cults. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Marcocapelle They're also primarily notable for brainwashing in a NRM context so I think it should be upmerged. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The articles do not mention that they are a mind control theorist so I think you are applying WP:SYNTH. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @Marcocapelle Of the 7 people in the to-be-merged category,
        1) Abgrall is noted as being a brainwashing theorist
        2) Clark’s article is a stub that doesn’t say much of anything
        3) Eichel’s article prominently mentions him presenting theories of brainwashing and mindcontrol
        4) Hassan’s article prominently mentions his theories of mind control
        5) Lalich’s article discusses her “coercive control” theories (also a synonym for mind control)
        6) Langone discusses his theories of mind control/coercive control as it relates to cults
        7) Singer’s article declares her notable primary for advancing theories of brainwashing
        At least 6 out of the 7 with the other being a stub without proper context.
        Mind control and brainwashing are the same thing (and our brainwashing page was at mind control until a few years ago) PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bedouin businesspeople[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Not necessary to subcategorize the target category this way. Also contains only 2 articles. Gjs238 (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games based on Fantastic Four films[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT, it only contains two articles. Should also be merged into Category:Video games based on Marvel Comics films and Category:20th Century Studios video games. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clone High characters[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only one article. Unopposed to a split if more come in the future. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:S.L. Benfica (table tennis)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only two articles. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No evidence that it can be expanded. Most other subcategories are similarly small and should also be merged. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding small siblings.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 20:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on GiantSnowman's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 14:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mosques by decade 620s-970s[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, sparsely populated category tree, many decade categories do not exist at all, not the least because exact dates are often unknown. It will become a lot easier to navigate between mosques articles when they are moved to century level. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Colonialism participants[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:WikiProject Colonialism was redirected and is no longer a project or task force. Gonnym (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Dacia participants[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia was redirected and is no longer a project or task force. Gonnym (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Counts of Geneva[edit]

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

Category:Pioneers of Israel[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This seems like it could plausibly renamed, refocused, or deleted. Obviously it's a coherent group, but is it an encyclopedic one as it stands? Remsense诉 03:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read the Encyclopedia of the Founders and Builders of Israel by David Tidhar. This category is a gold mine of information. It will help numerous people interested in studying the development of the state of Israel. These are the pioneers. Dag21902190 (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the issue is that "pioneer" is generally a term of adulation. I think at a bare minimum, the name of the category needs to be changed in order to conform with our policy concerning neutral point of view. Remsense诉 03:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dag21902190 Another issue is you seem to be treating this category page like it's an article, which is not correct. Remsense诉 04:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are meant to have a summary explaining what is in the category. Dag21902190 (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a one-sentence summary usually. Remsense诉 04:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pioneer has a definition, and just like the pioneers of America, these are the pioneers of Israel. It is not a term of adulation. It is a fact. Dag21902190 (talk) 04:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you cleanly define it in one sentence for me? Categories are meant to be fairly self-evident: if you need to write an article to fully flesh out your definition, it might not be a good category. It seems like you want to write a list article, which would need to stand up to our policies about verifiability, notability and neutral point of view. Your present prose does not, it is very much adulatory.Remsense诉 04:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Pioneers” are people who are among the first to explore or settle what becomes a new country or area. For example, a colonist/colonizer. Just because you interpret the term as adulation, doesn’t make it adulation. Best regards. I deleted the additional summary because of what you said. Dag21902190 (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you interpret the term as adulation, doesn’t make it adulation

Unfortunately that tends to be how language works, as we're talking about the connotations of language.
I don't quite understand your definition in any case, as none of the people in the category were among the first to explore or settle what is now Israel. Remsense诉 09:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what a colonizer is? What do we call the first Europeans to settle and develop America? Were they the first people to explore or settle America? Obviously they weren’t. You cannot take a long-used term, and pretend it can’t be applied to the very thing it defines. I hate to break it to you, but you sound like an anti-Israel shill. I understand if English isn’t your first language, but just because you interpret the word “pioneer” as adulation, doesn’t mean it should be changed. Dag21902190 (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Pioneers” are people who are among the first to explore or settle what becomes a new country or area.

None of the people in the category were among the first to explore or settle what is now Israel. Your definition doesn't work, is my point.

just because you interpret the word “pioneer” as adulation, doesn’t mean it should be changed.

Correct: it should be changed because it's not just me. As a verb, pioneer absolutely has distinctly positive connotations; some related, more neutral verbs are colonize, settle, construct, and establish. The interplanetary space probe was named Pioneer 6 and not Colonizer 6 or Establisher 6 for a reason, I'm afraid. Remsense诉 20:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s very clear that you don’t want the word pioneer being used because you don’t view the early settlers in a positive light. I will maintain, despite your attempt to bring in the naming of a satellite, that pioneer is the correct word to be used. American pioneers weren’t the first to settle America, yet they are defined as pioneers. All you have to do is search up the definition of pioneer on Google, and the first two examples of synonyms are “colonist” and “colonizer”. Your interpretation of the English language does not, and should not, mean you can redefine a word, because you view it as adulation. Dag21902190 (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American pioneers weren’t the first to settle America, yet they are defined as pioneers

There's been plenty of ink spilled about how "pioneer" is also wrong in an American context for exactly the same reason. Academic use sharply declined as a result.
I also shouldn't have to ask you not to accuse me of behaving in bad faith without a lick of evidence, as I've given you no reason to assume my motives are anything but what I've already said they are: Wikipedia has content policies. Remsense诉 20:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Aaron Aaronsohn is in Category:Ashkenazi Jews from Ottoman Palestine
  2. Sarah Aaronsohn is in Category:Ashkenazi Jews from Ottoman Palestine
  3. Baruch Agadati is in Category:Ashkenazi Jews from Ottoman Palestine
  4. Gershon Agron is in Category:Ashkenazi Jews from Ottoman Palestine
  5. Israel Aharoni is in Category:Ashkenazi Jews from Ottoman Palestine
  6. Abba Ahimeir is in Category:Jews from Mandatory Palestine
  7. Akiva Aryeh Weiss is in Category:Ashkenazi Jews from Ottoman Palestine
  8. Yigal Allon is in Category:Ashkenazi Jews from Ottoman Palestine
  9. Binyamin Amirà is in Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine
  10. Divsha Amirà is in Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine
  11. Zalman Aran is in Category:Jews from Mandatory Palestine
  12. Meir Argov is in Category:Jews from Mandatory Palestine
  13. Haim Ariav is in Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine
  14. Yitzhak Arieli is in Category:Jews from Mandatory Palestine
  15. Haim Arlosoroff is in Category:Jewish National Council members
  16. Ami Assaf is in Category:Jews from Mandatory Palestine
  17. Daniel Auster is in Category:Jews from Mandatory Palestine
  18. Genia Averbuch is in Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine
  • Comment Can the scope be simply defined first, before we consider if the category should be retitled, merged, or deleted? I think an issue with the term "pioneer" here is that it can be unclear and may be applied to many individuals that aren't intended. Kingsif (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Everyone here needs to take a deep breath. This is Wikipedia. Accusing people of anti-XYZ bias or destroying hard work is unproductive and does nothing to strengthen your point. With that out of the way, there is clear consensus that this category needs to change. Whether that change is in the form of deletion or not is to be determined (hence relisting), but if it is kept we need a defined scoped and potentially a better name.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 05:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:12th-century Almohad caliphs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Recommended by Nederlandse Leeuw (talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_11#Category:Government_of_the_Almohad_Caliphate:

Category:12th-century Almohad caliphs‎ (4 P) and Category:13th-century Almohad caliphs‎ (10 P) are probably best upmerged to Category:Almohad caliphs, and to Category:12th-century caliphs + Category:12th-century monarchs in Africa & Category:13th-century caliphs + Category:13th-century monarchs in Africa, respectively. A subdivision by century for a dynasty that lasted just under one century and a half tends not to aid navigation very much. But I suggest that for a follow-up.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Triple merge. The important thing is that the Almohad caliph category includes these 14 entries and no others, and dividing that category further by 2 centuries doesn't seem necessary. JoeJShmo💌 10:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Green Party of England and Wales donors[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Donating to a political party is rarely if ever defining. There is only one article in the category. (t · c) buidhe 01:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:18th century in Mozambique[edit]

Nominator's rationale: downmerge, redundant category layer, there isn't any content here that doesn't fall under Portuguese Mozambique. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with it, but can we leave this as a redirect to resolve the template from breaking? Mason (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting pending Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 3#16th to 19th century in (Portuguese) Mozambique.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


July 6[edit]

Category:Tourism in the Republic of Artsakh[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Because the Republic of Artsakh no longer exists, these categories should be merged into the present-day Azerbaijan. The top-level category should also be merged, as it also contains only the main article and one subcategory. It is possible that some of the pages are already elsewhere in the Azerbaijan categories — this would need to be checked manually. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dobrujan Tatar[edit]

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

Category:People from the Savoyard state[edit]

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

Category:EBU stubs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub category and template, newly created to hold just one article. As always, stub categories are not free for just any user to create on a whim for just one article of interest -- the minimum bar for the creation of a stub category is 60 articles, and for that very reason stub categories should normally be proposed for creation by Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting rather than just getting created willy-nilly.
But the parent category ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:European Broadcasting Union has just 14 articles in it of which only two are short enough that tagging them as stubs would be justifiable -- so really the only possible source of any significant amount of content for this is the ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Eurovision events subcategory, but ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Eurovision Song Contest stubs and {{Eurovision-stub}} both already exist to cover that off, and the one article that's been filed here already had that on it, thus making this entirely redundant to another stub template and category that we already have. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Film series characters originally introduced in a film[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Category of dubious utility, created just to hold a single article. I have to assume that the intended distinction here was "film series characters originally introduced in a film vs. film series characters originally introduced in other source material that a film series was adapted from", because that's the only way this makes a lick of sense -- but that isn't a useful or defining distinction, and would be an utter nightmare to try to maintain since every film character who has an article at all would have to be in either this category or an "adapted medium" sibling. We have no other "film series characters originally introduced in [type of medium]" categories that I can find. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Named roads[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization on a non-defining and unmaintainable characteristic. The category's name itself is obviously silly, because nearly all roads that exist at all have names and the few roads without names are profoundly unlikely to be notable at all -- but the usage note on the category is far more specific, identifying the category as "about the roads that are named after famous personalities", which is just a straight-up violation of WP:SHAREDNAME, and still approaches indiscriminacy anyway since a lot of roads are named after people, with it becoming very subjective whether any given person is "famous" enough to categorize the road as "named after a famous person" or not. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea was to create a category for eponymous roads in India.Most of the roads in India follow a standard numbering system(like NH1,2 …; SH1,2… etc) .Roads are named after people only in few exceptional cases.So the idea was to create a category solely for eponymous roads in India.But if this seems to violate any Wikipedia policy you can delete it. Tmanthara (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cricket administration in Mexico[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, only one article in each of these categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cricket administration in Bermuda[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Organisations based in Macau[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Subcats use a mixture of -s- and -z- spelling; seven others currently use z. There is no reason to use the -s- spelling in Macau, diverging from the international default -z-. The voluntary orgs cat is non-standard and an unnecessary layer, and the Scouting and Guiding cat holds only one article. – Fayenatic London 16:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and merge all per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Independent film stubs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Stub category and template that have likely outlived their usefulness. As always, the core purpose of stub categories is to facilitate expanding and improving the stubs enough that they can be pulled out of the stub categories -- so the most useful stub categories are ones that correspond to a community of editors with some expertise in the subject area, who can therefore collaborate on expanding the articles. But there isn't any particular community of independent film experts -- editors' areas of expertise are going to centre around countries and/or genres rather than indie status per se.
That is, there are editors who work on American films regardless of their major vs indie status, and editors who work on Japanese films regardless of their major vs indie status, and editors who specialize in science fiction films regardless of their major vs indie status, and on and so forth, but there aren't really any editors whose area of expertise is "independent films irrespective of country or genre".
This was certainly a good faith creation at the time, when we had far fewer articles about films and far fewer stub categories to group them in -- but the stub category tree is now so much more deeply granularized that this just doesn't represent a particularly useful characteristic to group stubs on anymore, because we have many more stub categories for much more specific and collaborative country and genre and time period groupings than we had in 2006.
I've already gone through the category to ensure that each article also has genre and/or nationality film stub templates on it as well, so nothing will be stranded if it goes, but it's just not at all clear that indie status is nearly as useful a basis for collaboration as the country and genre tags are. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zimbabwean Queen's Counsel[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only one category about the former country of Rhodesia. Since Zimbabwe isn't a Commonwealth Realm, this category won't have any articles in it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maltese Queen's Counsel[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge; only one article. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sandžak[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic. Regional name Sandžak is apparently hardly in use anymore. Even the articles in the history subcategory hardly mention it. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Considering Sandžak is very small area of Serbia, there is really not that much to write but it deserves to have a separate category. I'm not sure if there are rules involved as in how many articles should category have in order to even be considered but I believe that the amount written so far is good enough to keep it. Боки ☎ ✎ 07:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sex-documentary-film-stub[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Stub template of unclear utility. It's only used on three articles total, which obviously isn't enough to give it its own dedicated category -- so instead it just sorts the three articles directly into ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Documentary film stubs, where it just represents duplicate categorization because all three films are also in the ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:1960s documentary film stubs subcategory alongside it, and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Sexuality stubs, which is too broad and overgeneralized to be a useful place to look for films. So all this is really adding is superfluous stub categories that the three films don't really need to be in. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cricket administration in North America[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory each. It is sufficient to have Category:Cricket administration by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Muslims turned agnostics or atheists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Parent is Category:Converts from Islam and the sibling category is Category:Converts to Islam from atheism or agnosticism Mason (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCAWARD Nayyn (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Comic Book winners[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCAWARD and as there is a list article already Nayyn (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical geography[edit]

I can't imagine that these are fundamentally different concepts. I have tagged both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 Main article is Historical geography, while Geographic history redirects to History of geography. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding a representative sample of subcats to encourage further participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 09:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am going to tag all of the subcats; if there is no further participation I would expect this to be closed as option 2.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bengali–Assamese script[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There is a single Bengali–Assamese script shared between the two languages, even though they use different alphabets. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, there are multiple scripts for both languages (note the plural "scripts"), and the Bengali–Assamese script is one of these scripts used and shared by both languages (with minor differences), but there are other scripts (like Naoriya Phulo script). Look at the category content, they clearly cannot be merged as their listed scripts are not the same. They are not all the same single script. Only the Bengali-Assamese script (just named "Bengali script" in Unicode and also named "Eastern Nagari") is unified; the other scripts are distinct. As well within the "Bengali alphabet" and "Assamese alphabet" (which are relevant parts of the shared script specific to each language) are not the same (just like there are multiple Latin-base alphabets). verdy_p (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are only two articles about scripts in both categories, the rest has been added as a matter of loose association. Propose to move these two articles to the two parent categories and then delete the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cricket organizations[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Serves no purpose, as the only contents are a subcat that is in the same parent cat as the category being discussed. Gjs238 (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are Marcocapelle's changes sufficient to keep the category?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jesuit musicians[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non defining intersection between occupation and religion Mason (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films directed by Wayne Kramer (filmmaker)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Needless disambiguation. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per associated article Wayne Kramer (filmmaker). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buddhist monks from the Western Regions[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename, for English speaking readers of Wikipedia the term Central Asia is more familiar than Western Regions. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it is in effect a "former nationality" category. The article Western Regions refers to a historical period (up to 8th century CE) as well as a geographical range. All the current member pages are from that period, and renaming to "Central Asia" would lose this. "Western Regions" is named with reference to China, and its significance for Buddhism seems to be that Buddhist monks from this region took their texts into China during that period. – Fayenatic London 08:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television series by Fox Television Animation[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Given Fox Television Animation is a former name/entity of what is currently 20th Television Animation since 2020, I propose splitting up this category to differentiate the two eras of this studio's works. All of its productions from 1999 until 2020 should remain here, while any works made since the 2020 rebrand, I propose be moved to a new Category:Television series by 20th Television Animation. For series made under both, both cats ought to be present. The category as it is can be misleading with the cat name using the former "Fox" brand despite the description using the rebranded one under Disney. An example that supports this, as noted in the prior RfD here, is that we have separate cats at "Category:20th Century Fox films" and "Category:20th Century Studios films". That RfD suggested a split rather than a rename as initially proposed last November, but was closed with no consensus as no one else responded. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Conscientious objector Medal of Honor recipients[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent categories per WP:NARROWCAT. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Whirly-Girls[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge; the name is not what these women are referred to but only the name of the organization. Note that these articles are already in Category:Women aviators by nationality. Hence only single merge. Alternative suggestion: keep and rename to Category:Women helicopter pilots which would expand the scope of the category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I think renaming to Women Helicopter pilots is suitable and appropriate. There is currently a lack of categories on Wikipedia to suitably identify/locate topics/persons related to women's aviation. The current categories make it difficult to find these aviation pioneers, which are few and worthy of inclusion in a category as it is a defining characteristic. This is why I developed the category in the first place. Thank you for the measured discussion here. Nayyn (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While there are categories for female aviators, gyro and rotor pilots have different certifications compared to fixed wing pilots and thus it is a unique and defining category. There are comparatively few women who are helicopter pilots overall, and a category specifically for helicopters is particularly useful addition to Wikipedia. Nayyn (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as per WP:USEFUL [t]here are some pages within Wikipedia that are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument Nayyn (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that "women can be easily traced in Category:Women aviators by nationality." I think the suggestion to "keep and rename to Category:Women helicopter pilots which would expand the scope of the category" makes sense.
I'm not sure what the argument "not a defining characteristic" refers to above? Nayyn (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-defining is a keep tennet of Wikipedia:Categorization. @Nayyn, I strongly encourage you to familiarize yourself with the policies of categorization. Mason (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional illeists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 19#Category:Fictional illeists then undeleted out of process. Still seems non-defining. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G4. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G4 doesn't fit, as it was undeleted via Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion rather than recreated. --HPfan4 (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would still support deletion per WP:TRIVIALCAT. I just don't see this as a defining characteristic. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


July 5[edit]

Category:Fransiscan Seminary Maua[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Inconsistent with any alumni categorization scheme. Gjs238 (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Couldn't this be renamed and added to the proper categories? Mason (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if we knew of more than 1 notable alumni: Fransiscan Seminary Maua#Notable alumni. Gjs238 (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Teacher's Pet (TV series)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only two articles. No good merge targets. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zero-level elevation points[edit]

Nominator's rationale: As per Category_talk:Zero-level_elevation_points#Scope. fgnievinski (talk) 03:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Athletes by location in Greece[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge; only one category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Athletes by location in Greece, I've populated it so the nomination is no longer valid. Should do the same for the rest. --Habst (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Habst, if you can populate the rest as well, I will withdraw the nomination. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we populate the rest?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historic buildings and structures in Ireland[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:SUBJECTIVECAT)
In addition to being subjective, these categories really haven't been used. The only loose articles are in the parent category which has two buildings and two former buildings (1, 2, 3, 4). I added more categories to all 4 to make it easier for readers to find them and the existing Irish and UK heritage register categories are a more defining and neutral way of grouping articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sportspeople and century categories[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Per a number of previous CfDs (e.g. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_12#20th/21st-century_sportspeople), organizing sportspersons by century is seen as not helpful. At the end of that discussion, someone proposed that more of these categories should be subsequently nominated, but I don't believe that has happened, so I am doing so now. I am bundling a number of categories together and I think the dynamics of them are generally all the same, but note that I have excluded Category:20th-century sailors, which seems to have naval officers mixed into it; the bizarre subcategories of Category:20th-century English cricketers, which seems to merit its own nomination; and some of these ethnic/national categories like Category:Czechoslovak sportspeople who only existed in the 20th-century, but I don't think these should be deleted, as they are clearly part of a different scheme. There are also similar schemes for chess and Go, which I've left alone as they are more extensive and not actually sports, so it introduces noise about including them in any sports-related category. From what I see, this will not leave any orphan categories or something that cannot be logically navigated from another scheme and for what it's worth, I created at least one of these and think they should all go. Lastly, I of course have no prejudice against listifying some of these, but I'll leave that up to anyone who feels particularly motivated to do it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per request, I am pinging anyone I've seen participating in previous discussions, including some that were deletes on some of the above categories and someone saw fit to recreate, such as Category:20th-century cricketers which was recreated by User:Smasongarrison without any apparent consensus to un-delete, but said user can tell us below if there was and I've missed it. Please inform us why you recreated this deleted material. Any omissions are accidents, except in the case of deceased users (RIP). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london, BrownHairedGirl, Good Olfactory, Autarch, Debresser, Explicit, Johnbod, Oculi, Mayumashu, Alansohn, Neonblak, Bradjamesbrown, Black Falcon, Davshul, Djsasso, Resolute, Ravenswing, RGTraynor, Pparazorback, RandySavageFTW, PeeJay, PeeJay2K3, DoubleBlue, Necrothesp, David Eppstein, Lugnuts, Grutness, Peterkingiron, Icarusgeek, Hugo999, Omnis Scientia, Deltaspace42, Marcocapelle, Joseph2302, Qwerfjkl, ForsythiaJo, Bearcat, and Place Clichy: ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per request, here are some relevant CfDs re: sportspersons and by-century categories. Any omissions are purely ignorance on my part. Other users please do inform me if there are relevant CfDs on this topic that I've missed. As I noted above, there is a broad consensus against these in most, if not all, cases, and some users have seen fit to recreate categories where there was an explicit consensus to delete them.
―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The 19th century categories aren't modern, and have numerous recent CFDs in support of keeping them Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 25#Category:19th-century tennis players, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_10#Category:19th-century_referees_and_umpires. You also omitted several more recent CFDs, including this one I pointed out Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 29#Category:20th-century sportspeople by nationality. The goal of these categories is to keep the many century category clear. Please tag the participants from those CFDs.Mason (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So keep what? All of them? Just the 19th-century ones? The triple intersections of century, nationality, and sport such as Category:20th-century English cricketers? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't misgender me. For the record, I remade the parent category for cricketers because the nationality subcategories existed, and had existed for quiet sometime. Mason (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended the above, so pardon me for the gender-neutral pronoun usage. Maybe I was unclear: you saw that there was consensus to delete the category and yet you recreated it. Was there some consensus to recreate it that I didn't know about or did you just personally decide that even though you knew there was consensus to delete it, you would recreate it anyway without any consensus to do so? Please also actually answer the questions I asked so I know what your !vote is. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have already answered you question in regards to why I recreated the category: "I remade the parent category for cricketers because the nationality subcategories existed, and had existed for quiet sometime". That combined with the recent Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 29#Category:20th-century sportspeople by nationality, which I had also provided you, indicated that opinions might have shifted. I think that this mass nomination is a mess, and should not have been bundled. I am voting keep on procedural grounds. There are way too many different components happening here, there is no way to have a considered conversation. Further many of these deletions will isolate people/categories that have been diffused here to keep other categories organized. Mason (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. From what little I can recall, my rationale in creating this category was that baseball was a very different game in the 19th century and it was very useful to have a separate category for a relatively small subset of baseball players. Gamaliel (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, are you !voting to keep all or just 19th-century baseball ones? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just the 19th century. I don't do enough work in sports articles to properly gauge the usefulness of 20th century categories. Gamaliel (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ardit Sadiku[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Redudant category layer. There's not even a epon page for this category. Ardit Sadiku Mason (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century Nepalese film directors[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Modern occupations aren't diffused by century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_2#Film_directors_by_century Mason (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


July 4[edit]

Category:Golden Piton winners[edit]

Nominator's rationale: wp:OCAWARD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayyn (talk • contribs) 23:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an example of how WP:OCAWARD is being interpreted by CfD incredibly narrowly. It is clearly a useful category for those interested in mountaineering / climbing, and defining to those who are in this sport. The same arguments made by Aszx5000 above could be made for a number of other award categories that have been removed by CfD for the rationale WP:OCAWARD. The benefits to those reading Wikipedia and learning from the site about these topics far outweigh the possible "harm" supposedly caused by the existence of this category as per WP:OCAWARD. Nayyn (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gilgit-Baltistan stubs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete or merge, poorly populated stub category and we do not have any similar Pakistani province stub categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: what do you envision happening with the stub templates in the category? (For ease of reference, they are {{GilgitBaltistan-sport-stub}}, {{GilgitBaltistan-edu-stub}}, and {{GilgitBaltistan-stub}}.) HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for input on Marcocapelle's updated proposal. If there is no further participation; I would close this as rename.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 14:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tourist attractions in Ontario, California[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Does not aid navigation with only 1 article. User:Namiba 14:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:9th-century biologists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Isolated category. Upmerge for now. Most of the people in the category aren't defined as being biologists. Mason (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British place-names containing Brittonic */kɛːt/[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic of these places. By all means mention these four as examples in a language article. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, fair enough. I created this category, but I see your point. I'll make a list article :-) Alarichall (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decades in (Portuguese) Mozambique[edit]

Option A
Option B
Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, these are clearly duplicate decade categories. In option A the 20th century categories should follow in tandem. I have a weak preference for option A, "Portuguese" is an unnecessary addition because it was Portuguese until 1973 by implication. Also, at least in the 20th century, Portuguese Mozambique covered about the same area as the current republic (that was very different in earlier centuries though). If this goes ahead one way or the other then presumably establishments and disestablishments subcategories may be speedied per C2C. This is follow-up on a discussion with User:Fayenatic london. I will tag both sets of categories. See also yesterday's pre-20th century nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tourism in Faisalabad[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory each. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Malaya[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, the category seems to be about the Federation of Malaya. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mongol states[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, it is unclear how the categories are different from each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The difference is that some of the Mongol states were not physically located in present-day Mongolia. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baseball players from Ames, Iowa[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge; only two articles. No object to recreation if there are more articles to be added. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are now 3 articles. There are over 200 articles in Category:Baseball players from Iowa and Ames is one of the larger cities in Iowa. I'd prefer to keep or at least rename Category:Baseball players from Story County, Iowa which would be slightly larger.--User:Namiba 21:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Namiba's comment? (Keeping it to diffuse Category:Baseball players from Iowa and possibly renaming to broaden its scope.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional chimney sweepers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Most articles in here are works of media, which don't belong here anyway, while the one character that does can be merged to Category:Fictional domestic workers. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on renaming?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 15:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same question: thoughts on renaming?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


July 3[edit]

Category:British co-ed groups[edit]

Nominator's rationale: "British co-ed groups" simply do not exist, featuring an American term that makes no sense in a British context. Sources discussing mixed-sex British pop groups never describe them this way. Category, if kept, should be renamed to something that can be supported by sources. Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As Marcocapelle asks, is it defining?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 23:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:3rd century in Africa (Roman province)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory each. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to ?? century in Roman Africa I populated these categories somewhat. However, in Diocletian's administrative reforms (sometime between 284–305 CE), Africa (Roman province) was split into Africa Zeugitana, Africa Byzacena, and Africa Tripolitania. In 314 CE, these provinces were grouped together along with almost all Roman provinces on the African continent in the Diocese of Africa. Thus there essentially was no Roman province named just "Africa" in the 3rd-5th centuries. With my rename proposal, I suggest the new category scope includes all Roman and Byzantine-controlled areas on the African continent. The people categories need to be renamed as well. Daask (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 23:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Family of Boris Johnson[edit]

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

16th to 19th century in (Portuguese) Mozambique[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, all single-article categories, not helpful for navigation. Also consistently use "Portuguese Mozambique", as all articles refer to the Portuguese colony, rather than a mix of "Mozambique" and "Portuguese Mozambique", and Category:Portuguese Mozambique needs to exist anyway. I am proposing the latter because we need Category:Portuguese Mozambique anyway. Splitting in four century categories isn't necessary because the history, establishments and disestablishments categories will ultimately contain only 10, 14 and 4 direct articles respectively. This is follow-up on an earlier discussion with User:Fayenatic london. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with most of these, however,
Mason (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mason I think you have a good point but please clarify these links, which currently appear mistaken. – Fayenatic London 12:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, let me try to be less lazy this time 🤣 . Some of the relevant parent categories are missing, mainly occupation and century. Specifically,
In theory the women merge targets could be fine if the category is properly non-diffused, but I'd rather have the redundancy in case someone gets incorrectly removed from a "redundant layer" by the time the bot gets to this. Mason (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Commercial photographers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining type of artist. there's no commercial artist category Mason (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure what this category is for... Here's the first sentence of one of the articles, Tom Hussey (photographer): Tom Hussey is an American photographer specialising in commercial advertising and lifestyle photography. Maybe there's a better way to categorize these people. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pro-Confederate clergy[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between occupation and political orientation. This category is not the same as Category: Confederate States Army chaplains‎ Mason (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Czechoslovakian Wikipedians[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Contains only subcat Wikipedians from Czechoslovakia, which can go directly in the parent categories. Presumably the subcat should not be renamed to Czechoslovak Wikipedians, as that would be an anachronism. – Fayenatic London 10:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works about villains[edit]

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

Category:Transit authorities with natural gas buses[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This is not a useful category - the type of fuel used by an agency's buses is not a defining characteristic of those agencies. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is so oviously WP:OCTRIVIA. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deep Space Network[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The category was originally created for the NASA Deep Space Network. Expansion to "the deep space networks of all countries and organizations" was made explicit in 2013, but the category has never yet been renamed. Nurg (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion perhaps rename to Category:Space networks. This could extend to 'near space' networks such as Near Earth Network and LEGS. The category is not overwhelmingly large, and the near space networks are likely of interest to the same readers. LouScheffer (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lou. I am happy for it to be expanded to include 'near space' networks, as it seems there is no category specifically for them currently. Nurg (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The proposed name is a more accurate description. LouScheffer (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. We don't have a main article, but this is a good description of these topics. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Argentine commanders in the Falklands War[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The single article in the category isn't a commander. Gonnym (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's (semi-)proposal to populate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


July 2[edit]

Religion in China Redux[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The rationale given by Marcocapelle for the previous CFD back in May:

"in" is an odd preproposition in relation to a dynasty, "under" or "during" makes more sense.

This is usually the case, but as regards China X dynasty is the most common and natural form in English for the name of the state itself. Per the standard for analogous categories, e.g. Category:Religion in the Byzantine Empire, I think reassuming the previous pattern would be ideal. Remsense诉 22:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, Category:Religion in the Byzantine Empire is not an analogous category because Byzantine does not refer to a dynasty. A good analogous example is Category:People under the Almoravid dynasty. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The state is what is being referred to here, wholly in line with the language used in English-language literature about China. Remsense诉 04:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • A dynasty is something else than a state. If anything, the state is China. With the other example, the Almoravid dynasty, there is no commonly used state name at all, and that is also fine. State names may be derived from the dynasty name, e.g. Sassanid Empire and Sassanid dynasty but that is not the case here either. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't mean to be rude, but I feel this is being overly deliberate about universal boundaries between interwoven concepts in a way that, I stress, ignores actual usage. In part, these lexical differences can be ascribed to the distinct paradigms of dynasties in China compared to elsewhere. Byzantium was not really dynastic at its core at all, with the legitimacy of the state always clearly surpassing that of lineages. China was not the opposite per se, it's just that there was a totally different, more consubstantial relationship between the Chinese state and its ruling dynasty.
      Putting an even finer point on the "actual usage" argument: in a fulltext search of my library of China-related books, "under the Han dynasty" appears verbatim at some point in 14 books, while "in the Han dynasty" appears in 91! This ratio is 1:27 for the Shang, 11:21 for the Jin (both represented), 8:67 for the Tang, 6:54 for the Song, 11:42 for the Yuan, 16:52 for the Ming, and 7:51 for the Qing. This must reflect some conventional usage of "dynasty" in the name of a state, right? Remsense诉 05:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Colonial Puerto Rico[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename in accordance with the category description, it only refers to the Spanish colonial period, not to the American period which can (especially in the beginning) can be regarded as colonial too. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hijacked journals[edit]

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

Category:Hieronymus Praetorius scholars[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This cat was created with the sole purpose of being added to the categories of musicologist Jeffery T. Kite-Powell (same user created the cat & expanded the Kite-Powell article). I'm afraid that Hieronymus Praetorius is so impossibly niche that there are probably less than three "Hieronymus Praetorius scholars" in human history. Aza24 (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tracker musicians[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Tracker software is commonly used to create chiptunes, such that there is a very significant overlap between the two categories. Given the mostly overlapping and duplicative nature of the categories, a merge seems warranted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also tagging Chiptune musicians.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 19:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject assessment categories needing attention[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The purpose of this category is unclear. Some categories were added manually, while others are tagged by Template:Category class — based on the template's source code, this happens if and only if the name is incorrect. 
{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}{{subst:!}}{{PAGENAME:{{{class}}}{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{class{{subst:!}}}}}}}{{subst:!}}unassessed{{subst:!}}{{subst:!}}-Class}} {{{topic}}} articles}}{{subst:!}}
   {{subst:!}}[[Category:WikiProject assessment categories needing attention]]
  }}
–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked WP:AWBREQ to auto-tag all of the categories here that are manually added, almost all of which have only the category listing in their source code. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait, Category:Template Category class with class parameter not matching title exists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can {{Category class}} handle pages like Category:Disambig-Class Bihar articles of Low-importance‎? It has both class and importance. Gonnym (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't think there is an existing template that covers cateegory navigation for the quality–importance intersection. I'm also seeking to standardize category names fo this type with a recent WP:CFDS for the intersectional ones of WikiProject Amphibians and reptiles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are you going to tag all 333 categories in Category:WikiProject assessment categories needing attention? Liz Read! Talk! 01:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: This nomination is only about the parent, not its subcategories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "manually tagged" ones were added because while this has now faded somewhat, last year in particular there was an absolute epidemic of people making hasty, half-baked "standardization" edits to wikiproject templates that had the side-effect of spewing out new redlinked wikiproject class and importance rating categories (sometimes even for wikiprojects that don't even do importance-rating at all) at an absolutely alarming rate — meaning that as a person who works to clean up categorization errors at Special:WantedCategories, for several weeks I was getting slapped in the face with dozens of those at a time on every new generation of that report.
    They can't just stay red, which means they have to be either created or removed before the next generation of the report 72 hours later — but removing a template-generated category is impossible without either editing the template in ways that surpass my understanding of template-coding infrastructure, and thus likely breaking stuff, or totally reverting the changes that caused the redlinked category to exist in the first place, and thus being disruptive, so my only option was to create all of those categories myself. But creating a class or importance rating category is a more complex process than creating a mainspace category, especially in the cases where I would have had to create the entire importance-rating infrastructure from scratch (which I don't even know how to do), so it would have taken me weeks to do all the work myself — so especially given the sheer amount of crap I was having to deal with, my only realistic option was "do the absolute bare minimum necessary to make the category blue instead of red, and leave it in a place where the experts in wikiproject-rating categorization can fix it": namely, create a virtually blank category that doesn't contain all of the category-making code that a wikiproject assessment category should really contain, and then leave it in a "wikiproject categories that need to be fixed by people who actually know what they're doing" queue.
    There's absolutely nothing on this category that says it's only for naming errors, and there are other kinds of attention that a wikiproject assessment category can need besides naming problems alone — so it makes sense to create the proposed category as a subcategory of this if desired, but it doesn't make sense to move the existing category to this since there can be other legitimate reasons for its use besides naming problems alone. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not automate the creation and labeling of these categories? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would have to be done by somebody who knows how to do that, wouldn't it? Said somebody would not be me, so while those should be automated I'm not the one who can do that. Bearcat (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with splitting the incorrect names subcategory with the template-categorized system through Template:Category class and Template:Category importance, and leaving this category here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:MEPs from Italy 2024–2029[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. CSD G7 Liz Read! Talk! 18:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created by self in error. PatGallacher (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:2024 in professional wrestling in Massachusetts[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article. The sole article is already in Category:2024 in Boston so no further merging is needed. User:Namiba 16:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Patrons of Romantic artists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category. People are patrons of whatever era of artists they happen to be alive during Mason (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's employers and patrons[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Rename the cat to make what's happening a tad clearer. We tend to avoid possessives Mason (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Destroyed Hindu temples[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military history of Australia during the Korean War[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer, the parent category of each is nearly empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National military histories by war[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I find this name very confusing. I think, based on the contents, it would be better off as Military history by war and country, and the child categories could be renamed Vietnam War military history by country etc Mason (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beauty pageant controversies[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Most of the contents of this category are people, not events. Describing people as "controversies" simply because they've attracted some sort of negative media attention during their career - or, in some cases, for no evident reason at all - seems inappropriate and potentially a BLP concern. Omphalographer (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on purging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I favour purging, but 4 items is barely viable for a category, although there is no absolute minimum. NLeeuw (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am going to relist a further time, but my current thoughts on consensus is that everyone in this discussion agrees that BLPs should not be in the category – the real debate is whether those four pages should be in the category. That is a long way of saying: if there is no further participation in a week, I would personally close this as purge with not consensus on whether the category should exist or not..
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Timelines of video games[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category has become redundant. Judging by the titles of articles, none of them are "Timelines", except for a single article that is "Timeline of arcade video games", so if we categorized stuff correctly, we would get a category with only one article. It also overlaps almost entirely with the other category "Video game lists by genre".

The Persian and Malay versions of this category only have subcats btw, which isn't a good thing. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per QuantumFoam66. Of the articles they removed, Timeline of arcade video game history is the only one that is a timeline, and List of games using procedural generation is in Category:Video game lists by technology or feature. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older discussions[edit]

The above are up to 7 days old. For a list of discussions more than seven days old, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All old discussions.

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