Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion
(Redirected from Wikipedia:CFD/All)
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 01:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 160 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
  • Comment: on second thought, perhaps this should go to CfD. Although the main article is Bronx High School of Science, perhaps it should be The Bronx High School of Science per WP:THE, which matches the way this category is currently named. It appears "The" is part of the name. In any case, either the cat name should change or the article name should change so they match. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article should be restored to its original title before it was moved without discussion. The school's name is officially with the "The". Gonnym (talk) 08:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Kings of the Romans nominations. "King of the Romans" is a full title, it has nothing to do with Romans. Also, this has been on full discussion before. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: How is this different from MOS:JOBTITLES? King becomes kings when pluralized in all applications that I'm aware of. What more is a discussion supposed to yield? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Following up on this in case you missed the ping @Marcocapelle. Is the idea that "Kings of the Romans" is itself a proper title? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold pending other discussion

edit
  • None currently

Moved to full discussion

edit
  • @Omnis Scientia: shouldn't the standard be the other way around? These seem to be about princes and princesses of a country indeed, in contrast to "barons of" categories which you nominated at full CfD. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle, I'm not fully sure. The naming is uneven in all these categories. But for princes and princesses, I would say "Fooian princes" is the better form since there are also sovereign princes such as the Prince of Monaco and many more throughout history. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I didn't move this one to full Cfd since majority were already "Fooian princes(ses)" so C2C applied here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The usage of "prince" in Prince of Monaco is quite exceptional, in contrast to the usage of the word "prince" as "male member of the family of the monarch". In both cases they are princes of a country though. What otherwise would they be a prince of. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Marcocapelle, would you be is favor of taking it to full Cfd? Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  • @SFBB: the discussion has been moved to full Cfd where there is an option A and B. Feel free to contribute there. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current discussions

edit
Shortcut

June 24

edit

NEW NOMINATIONS

edit

Category:History of Great Britain

edit
Nominator's rationale: Option A: remove header and a remove a number of parent categories. Option B: nominate subcategories for merger. In any case, the current content of the category is completely out of sync with how the category creator(s) intended. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, please clarify the issue with this particular category. I don't really follow. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just Delete & re-home articles as necessary. The period of the Kingdom of Great Britain - from 1707 to 1800, is not really used by historians or the public. If kept it should be more clearly named to avoid confusion with the (main) geographical meaning of Great Britain, which has clearly been taken by some adders as the intended meaning. In fact such a category might make more sense, at the top of trees with UK, English, Scottish & Welsh sub-cats. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 2 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/him) 02:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:47, 24 June 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]
  • Heavily purge, there are four articles that may stay here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 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]


June 23

edit

Category:Jewish American jazz composers

edit
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Non-defining intersection between genre, instrument, and ethnicity per WP:EGRS Mason (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suicides by year

edit
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Suicide is a way of dying. Since there is a Category:Suicide methods and Category:Deaths by year, I would argue we don't need a category for a specific way of dying by year. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t understand your rationale re: our having a cat for suicide methods and a cat for deaths by year. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically that its WP:OVERCAT. If a person dies by suicide, they should be categorized in the year they died and the way they died and there is no need for a seperate "by year" category for a specific way of dying. I've only nominated a decade for now to see how this Cfd goes. Then, if it goes through, I will nominate the rest. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:55, 23 June 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]

Battles in Spain 3

edit
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 9#Battles in Spain 1 and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 10#Battles in Spain 2. NLeeuw (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Fossorials

edit
Nominator's rationale: Project was deleted at MfD. Delete all sub-categories as well. Gonnym (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged the subcategories. Delete all per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The subcategories are now listed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as having been created by blocked or banned users

edit
Nominator's rationale: Based on the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators WP:CSD#G5 is no longer restricted to pages created by blocked or banned users but now also applies to pages created in violation of general sanctions (regardless of any attribute of the editor, to the faith in which they created the page, or even if they knew such sanctions existed, an action I continue to think is harmful to the project but alas the consensus was not with me) and so the category name needs to be updated and this unwieldy new title is the shortest one I can craft that is accurate. Splitting the category would be sensible but also contrary to the RfC outcome which explicitly rejected creating a new criterion, so I'm not proposing that. Speedy deletion categories are usually populated by templates, but as there are multiple of them and the templates do not need to be renamed I guess CfD is the appropriate venue, but feel free to move to this to TfD if I'm wrong on that. I'm not sure if I need to individually notify editors who participated in the RFC, but I will leave a message on the RFC talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crater Lake

edit
Nominator's rationale: Ambiguity problem. This category is for one specific lake-slash-national-park in the United States whose name is Crater Lake, but I just had to clean it up for the misfiling of several generic crater lakes in Uganda. As always, the mere presence of a usage note on the category itself is not necessarily sufficient to control the problem, as people frequently file things in categories that sound right and then walk away without checking the category to see if they're doing it wrong -- so the category itself should be named as precisely as possible to quash any ambiguity. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films set in Velankanni

edit
Nominator's rationale: "Films set in [Place]" category for a small town, without enough films filed in it to need a dedicated category. As always, every town that exists does not automatically get one of these the moment a couple of films have been set there -- it would be fine if there were five or ten films to file here, but if there are less than five then the state level is sufficient. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Albert Henry Krehbiel

edit
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a person, without the volume of spinoff content needed to justify an eponymous category. Other than the eponymous biography itself, the only other things filed here are an alternate version of his name that elides the middle "Henry", and the title of a book about him, both of which are just redirects to the eponymous biography rather than separate articles.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can actually find evidence that there are enough other related articles that could be filed here, but we do not need a category just to hold three different ways of getting to the same place. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television series about microbes

edit
Nominator's rationale: "[Form of media] about X" category with only one thing in it and little prospect of expansion since microbes are not a common subject of television series — and the television series here was a cartoon, so its being "about" microbes falls short of being a defining characteristic. As always, we do not automatically need an "about" category for every single possible thing that one television series has been "about" -- this would need to be common enough of a subject for television series to have at least five entries in it before it was justifiable. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Luarsab Sharashidze

edit
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a person, with no content in it besides the eponym himself. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject to know whether there are other things that could be filed here to populate it, so I'm not prepared to just speedy-delete it as a categorization error myself without discussion and am willing to withdraw this if enough other content can be found, but people do not automatically get categories at their own names just to hold their own main biographies. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Digital-only stations on the AM band

edit
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia does not categorize radio stations for the matter of whether they're on the AM or FM bands, so we don't need to intersect digital-only status with a criterion that we don't otherwise categorize for. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 23 June 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]

Category:Former Philippine Basketball League teams

edit
Nominator's rationale: The Philippine Basketball League is defunct for several years now, so all of its teams are now its former teams. Upmerge to Category:Philippine Basketball League teams. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional female entertainers

edit
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT, possibly some subcategories will merit a dual merge to Category:Fictional entertainers. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:16, 23 June 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]
  • Oppose Yes, there is some overlap, but a tracker does not imply chiptune, and not all chiptunes made with a tracker. Also, "tracker" is strictly a type of music software, while "chiptune" is also considered a genre of music. If it makes sense to merge them into a single Category:Chiptune and tracker musicians, I'd be fine with that. Or maybe by platform, e.g. Nintendo musicians, Amiga musicians, etc. --Vossanova o< 01:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is preferable to the status quo, so I am fine with that too if people disagree there is an overlap. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:04, 15 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]

Category:Rock, Rock, Rock!

edit
Nominator's rationale: Not a lot of opportunity for growth here. The two songs articles can be merged to Category:Songs written for films. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure.
I would suggest to take out “I’m Not a Juvenile Delinquent” and “You Can’t Catch Me,” then just leave that category as it is. However, I guess deletion might be a solution for Wikipedia I guess. So fair enough. Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a second thought, I oppose this deletion because WP:SMALLCAT is not approved and these songs were written for the movie. Therefore, leave it as it is. Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, keep. Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:SMALLCAT has been deprecated, so opportunity for future growth is no longer an accepted argument. The two songs were written for the movie, so they appear to be intrinsically related. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, I think it's best for it to be deleted. It's Wikipedia, but I agree. Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't see the need for an eponymous category for a film's music that only contains its soundtrack and two songs from it. They are already well-linked by other means, and there is no scheme for such categorization for similar films (no Category:Flashdance, no Category:The Woman in Red (1984 film), which each have articles for its soundtrack and multiple songs), only by the music of film franchises per Category:Film music by media franchise. Rock, Rock, Rock! isn't a franchise so even a move to Category:Rock, Rock, Rock! music doesn't make much sense (but that would be a better option than the current eponymous named one). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough.
    Best regards,
    Inajd Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 04:16, 10 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]

Category:Doki Doki Literature Club! characters

edit
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Doki Doki Literature Club! since that category only includes these characters and the game itself. The characters are all still in that category, so there is nothing to merge here. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creator. Admittedly entirely forgot about the parent category when creating the category, so I agree with the redundancy issue. Though I agree, I still would have appreciated it if we could have finished discussing this before nominating it for deletion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I guess I probably should have gone a bit slower. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, especially since this category is getting deleted either way. Apologies if I was a bit accusatory by accident there. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per it being a mistaken creation according to category creator. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge, agree with redundancy, but better keep the subcat in order to keep the content in the tree of Category:Indie game characters. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not redundant, it falls within an established category tree and has a clear purpose. I should remind people that WP:SMALLCAT no longer applies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Small cat might not apply, but neither does saying that we should keep a category just because it's "established". Mason (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what I am saying. I am saying that the practice of grouping characters by game is a well-established one. This falls under that scheme and there is no reason to remove it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that it's redundant to the already existing DDLC category. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not redundant when it's a valid subcategory. Categories don't have to have things directly in them to count as a full category. Having a fully populated subcategory still counts. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Doki Doki Literature Club!.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE: If we are going to keep this, I would support keeping both and oppose a merge. I think this category is redundant, but I think it makes sense to have the other category even if this one exists. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British women Marxists

edit
Nominator's rationale: Do we really need to diffuse this category by nationality? Frankly, I have my doubts that the intersection of gender and Marxism is defining. Mason (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sibling cats suggest:
More than enough to populate this category. I might add that a lot of subcategories in this tree do not feature a single woman. Women are underrepresented as part of biographies on British Marxists, and I don't think upmerging this category is going to help address that gender gap at all. NLeeuw (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on populating?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but Populate per NLeeuw. There are loads of people who fit into this category. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:06, 23 June 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]
  • Oppose - the history of Malaya/Malaysia is more complex than just merging 'Federation' JarrahTree 08:41, 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]

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]

Category:18th-century Wallachian poets

edit
Nominator's rationale: 3x merge there are at most 6 people in this poet tree, without a real need to diffuse by century. I made a potential merge target category because Category:Wallachian poets didn't exist as a category.Mason (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is significantly less of a chore to create small intersectional and valid categories than huge category trees, which can be created at any ulterior time for reuniting the smaller categories and any articles that remain loose. I would rather create "18th-century Wallachian poets" instead of "Wallachian poets" (or rather "Category:Poets from the Principality of Wallachia" -- the two nomenclatures currently compete), if the latter option has me tagging all the articles on Wallachian poets, then sorting them by retagging the same articles with the respective narrower category! It reduces my workload and it is sheer common sense. Note how, in the "military personnel" tree, you had them all fitted nicely for you to just unify the categories; but of course you didn't realize that a lot of articles on Wallachian soldiers from other centuries (say: the 15th) are now not in the category you created, and of course you didn't go searching for such examples to include in the larger category you created (you also didn't realize that the category level you created should now include other trans-chronological articles, such as Category:Spatharii of Wallachia, all of whom were a sort of military personnel). You see: that would be the sort of work required for the part of the category tree that I hadn't bothered created, and the sort of workload you're now externalizing for others. (My contributions focus mainly on content creation, with all the intricate research this requires. I find category creation necessary, but boring -- implying that I should spend my time here on creating potentially immense categories, or hunting down articles to fill out the immense categories that others create, is a bit presumptuous. Just like other requests of that nature, for instance that I should fill out more redlinks to demonstrate to my colleagues here that a category is sufficiently valid -- that "18th-century Wallachian poets" is at least as valid a category as "Aqua members".) Dahn (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also: Category:Moldavian and Wallachian poets is rather pointless. I had created Category:Moldavian and Wallachian chroniclers back when we didn't have a category tree for both former countries, and to address the fact that chroniclers, a sort of occupation that is entirely in the past (for a genre that ended in the early 19th-century), had a trans-border shared tradition of history-writing (and a limited number of articles to fit in there). While this shared tradition can also be argued for poets: if we already have poets in the Wallachian category, what is the exact point of creating a category (other than the already existing larger Romanian one) for "Wallachian and Moldavian poets"? Dahn (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I modeled the parent of Category:Moldavian and Wallachian chroniclers, because this is not my area of expertise. I'm fine with an alternative target, and would have much preferred that a parent category existed instead of having to make an educated guess. Mason (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I have to say I do not understand the logic whereby we "only" have a category for "foo fooians" if it is demonstrated that there are "enough" (a never-defined "enough") articles to populate it. Sure it would be absurd to have a category for just two articles (though, again, three is apparently enough in other cases). But a category exists not just to neatly group the articles in a shelf; it exists to facilitate navigation, to quickly allow our readers, through this unique instrument offered by our platform, to see all the connections between a set of articles. The evidently absurd example you provide with Category:20th-century Aqua (band) members (I do understand the rhetorical point, but still) shows that you simply do not regard this as an important feature, that you do not conceive of any practical situation in which a reader may need a quick navigational tool for seeing what and how many were the Wallachian poets in the 18th century (including all the utterly mediocre ones that would not be mentioned in a properly developed Literature of Romania), and that you do not see it fit to ask why me as an editor would conceive of a tool to assist such a reader. I find that a bit arresting. Dahn (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DahnPlease just make all the proper parent categories. It's not an unreasonable ask. Mason (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it not helpful? Please elaborate on that point. Dahn (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • E.g. from Mihai Iștvanovici there is only one other similar article that you can directly go to, which is not very informative. By merging you can directly go to 5 other similar articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
44 subcategories to Category:18th-century poets by nationality, yet just one gets singled out. Interesting. Also note that of those 44, fully 10 have less than 4 articles included. Biruitorul Talk 07:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support 6 is not a lot for a category, but although there is no consensus on the mininum amount of items per category at any given time, WP:MFN (the work-in-progress guideline) recommends to merge for now if a category has fewer than 5 items. I don't feel too strongly about the need to merge these categories, but it's fine with me to do so. NLeeuw (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge target? (see Marcocapelle's alt proposal)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose century categories are useful and standard for poets, and the rationale invoked is vague — there is no clear consensus about how small is too small. — Biruitorul Talk 18:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women who experienced pregnancy loss

edit
Nominator's rationale: Delete; the idea for this category clearly came from a good faith place but I don't see how helpful it is. Losing a pregnancy is a lot more common than people think, and the further back you go in history the more common it was. Its not a defining characteristic of any of these women even though it was likely a defining moment (or moments) in their lives. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. and agree with the assessment that its creation was in good faith. There might be a handful, like Catherine of Aragon, where you could make a case that it was defining, but it's a stretch. (And if anything henry the 8th's experience with pregnancy loss would probably be more defining...) Mason (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. An earlier discussion closed as no consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose I do not see any arguments being advanced why the earlier discussion (less than a year ago) should be disregarded, or how all the opposing arguments presented then should be ignored, or why those arguments have somehow been undermined or overturned. If you're just here to redo a discussion without bringing new policy and guideline-based reasons to do so, that is not helpful for the process. NLeeuw (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw, I wasn't aware of the previous discussion until Marco added a link to this. But I can give you a more detailed reasoning. You can say this category can also come under WP:TRIVIALCAT since, as painful it is, it is trivial that a famous woman lost a pregnancy. It may even be WP:SUBJECTIVECAT since even an abortion can be considered pregnancy loss to some and not to others and also, to some people, giving birth to a child who died soon after birth can be too.
    Also worth noting that we now know that women aren't the only ones who can get pregnant. Non-binary people can too. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, let's have a look.
    • What does WP:TRIVIALCAT say? In general, if something could be easily left out of a biography, it is likely that it is a trivial characteristic. I think that depends. I know women to whom a miscarriage was traumatising and life-changing, but I also know women to whom a miscarriage was kind of okay since the pregnancy was unplanned anyway. Furthermore, I know women who consciously opted to abort their pregnancy when the circumstances were not right to complete the pregnancy, and to some of them, it wasn't a big deal, while to others it was (even though they didn't regret it, as it was the best choice in the situation). Nevertheless, pretty much all these women only disclosed their experiences to me in a private setting, with a clear understanding that I should keep it a secret from others; they wish to control which people are allowed to know it, as they consider it a private and sensitive matter, even if in the end it wasn't a big deal to some of them. I think this wish should be respected.
    For our purposes here, I think this would call for a case-by-case assessment of what impact the person in question says in WP:RS that the pregnancy loss has had on their life. We shouldn't be labelling people to whom it wasn't that important, as this could needlessly stigmatise them. Especially in WP:BLPs, as pointed out in the previous discussion, we should be very careful not to categorise such people unless they come forward with their stories and explain it was very important in their lives.
    • I agree with you that the current catdesc is vague about whether it includes intentional abortions. The linked article pregnancy loss suggests it includes both intentional and unintentional cases. If that is the objection, though, the logical solution would be a split of the category rather than a deletion, wouldn't you agree?
    • I agree that non-binary people can get pregnant and experience pregnancy loss as well. If that is the objection, though, the logical solution would be a renaming of the category rather than a deletion, wouldn't you agree?
    NLeeuw (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw, respectfully I wouldn't agree with any split or rename because I also think this category is WP:NONDEF in addition to being trivial and subjective. If its worth adding, the information about pregnancy loss should be added - which is to say written into - to the article of the person. Indeed, in most cases it matters, it is gone into detail. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. That seems to suggest you no longer support deletion, does it? NLeeuw (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw, where did I suggest I no longer support deletion? I very much do. I merely stated that if a person has lost a pregnancy and it is important to their lives, that information should be incorportated into their article. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah sorry, then I misunderstood what you said. I guess I can understand that argument. I'll wait to see what others have to say for now. Thanks for your clarifications so far. NLeeuw (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw, no worries! Thanks for hearing me out as well! :) Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, the above, and last time. Simply not defining, plus except for a few high profile women, we usually just don't know about this aspect of lives. To judge by the category as it is, this virtually only seems to happen to European royalty and American actresses. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The current contents might, of course, not be representative of humanity at all. But it is a good question who should and shouldn't be in here, if we are to have this category. NLeeuw (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is, and would be, who we have RS information for. That will only be a very small minority of our population of 397,000 women with biographies, reinforcing how non-defining it is. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I follow why a very small number of biographies falling into the category reinforces the argument that it is non-defining? That's true for many non-controversial categories. Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because this is extremely common, and if it was defining we would have far more entries, even given the frequent lack of information. Johnbod (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This isn't an easy question but having read through the extensive earlier discussion, I am persuaded that this category should be kept. It can be a WP:DEFINING event for some people based on reliable sources; if it isn't, then the category shouldn't be applied to the article (also bearing in mind WP:SENSITIVE). It seems to me correctly applied in the cases of (for example) Chrissy Teigen, Kathryn van Beek and Anne Boleyn. Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chocmilk03, WP:DEFINING means characteristics that person is notable for. I think you would agree that, while these women may have lost a pregnancy, they aren't defined by them nor are their lives characterised by losing pregnancies. The only serious exception is royalty for obvious reasons.
    Again, if its defining to their lives in any way, it should be added to the person's article. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Omnis Scientia: In my view, the characteristic of having lost a pregnancy can contribute to notability, and is a defining event for some people. In the same way that we have categories for year of birth, where people attended high school, Category:People with Parkinson's disease, Category:American amputees, Category:People with polydactyly, etc, categories don't have to be the main thing that the person is notable for or the defining aspect of their life in order to be defining and useful for navigational purposes. Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chocmilk03, well you can make that argument but, at the same time, not everything is categorized. Not every medical condition is categorized, not every disability. Its why "People with infertility issues" (or something similar) is not categorized and why I feel this category should not be either. I've given my reasons for why above, not least of which is that losing pregnancy is something very common and, going back further, was a lot more common. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also not go with the old Cfd's arguments. It really turned into a huge row which was not about debating whether the category was WP:OVERCAT or not (I think it is in many ways) but rather about people saying "what about this" and so on. I hope this Cfd will be more on actual policy than the previous one. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also please don't argue WP:OTHERCATSEXIST. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Omnis Scientia: My views are based on my own reading of the policies including WP:CATDEF, WP:TRIVIALCAT, WP:COPDEF etc, not the previous CFD arguments. In my view, this category does meet the criteria of defining for some people (even though it is unlikely to be the sole reason for notability). "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic"; pregnancy loss meets this criteria for some people.
    I wasn't arguing that "other stuff exists"; those categories were simply examples to illustrate my point, in the same way you've used "People with infertility issues" as an example of why you feel this category should not exist.
    I've read your arguments (and those of others above) and respectfully disagree, hence my vote for 'keep'. I don't seek to persuade you of the correctness of my views, and understand you take a different view. Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I find Chocmilk03's arguments somewhat persuasive, but not yet compelling. Let's see what others have to say. NLeeuw (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see previous discussion, as Marcocapelle linked above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've read through the arguments in the previous discussion and what else has been written here. Fundamentally, something is defining if it's often (or could reasonably be) mentioned in the lead. For 99% of these pages, its not defining. I still think that the category should be deleted as it isn't defining. For the very few who it could be defining, they can be added to a list. At the very very very least, this category needs to be purged. Mason (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for that clarification. Note to closer: Mason already !voted Support per nom above, so the word deleted in this comment shouldn't be counted. NLeeuw (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hinglaj Mata

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge, the category only contains a single image. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The Hinglaj Mata Temple doesn't have any scope for a topic category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added relevant article pages to the category-the main temple and another a fort. Krayon95 (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Hinglajgarh related to Hinglaj Mata Temple? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the article itself, the fort is either named or developed after a temple of the said goddess. Krayon95 (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the new situation, delete, the category contains two different sorts of buildings in entirely different places. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both places are temples of the same deity. Category could be useful for further temple articles of the deity. Krayon95 (talk) 04:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • We already established that one article is about a fort. No objection to recreate the category when a handful of articles about Hinglay Mata temples have been written, but for the time being we even lack a stand alone Hinglaj Mata article. Also note that Hinglaj Mata Temple is already in Category:Durga temples which is properly populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles of the American Revolutionary War by state

edit
Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 6#Category:Battles of the War of 1812 by state. NLeeuw (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
do not merge this is simply another step in the path of destroying useful category information at the US state level. US state boundaries are in no way akin to the boundary problems found in some European countries, which was misused used as a precedent by this editor to destroy the state categorization of the Battles of the War of 1812. State boundaries have not generally changed since their formation, unlike the shifting boundaries of European geographic entities. Hmains (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would respectfully request that you WP:assume good faith, and base your opposition to the proposal on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, rather than a personal POV of how things supposedly were in the past in North America compared to Europe so that WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN conveniently does not apply to categories you created. I am simply applying our polices and guidelines, confirmed by consensus established in precedents, and I would urge you to do the same. Have a good day. NLeeuw (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing about 'the past' involving the boundaries of the federal states of the United States. Unlike Europe of the past, the boundaries of these states are generally the same as when they were created over of last 200+ years. That means a battle that took place in a populated place of state x is still correctly stated as having been a battle in state x. I am not doing things in WP for my own convenience, whatever that may be. I am stating the facts. You have requested deletion of all these categories so I assume that is your intent--this does not involve 'faith' of any kind. Thanks Hmains (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I did not mean to offend in any way if that is what happened. I am just here to edit. Thanks Hmains (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, no offence taken. I only took issue with the passage ...which was misused used as a precedent by this editor to destroy the state categorization.... This way of saying things implies that I am deliberately doing something wrong, and that what I am doing is harmful. The first bit is conduct that users should avoid: WP:Assume good faith means that we always assume that fellow editors are trying to do the right thing, even if they make mistakes. (And I do make plenty of mistakes, and I'll happily be corrected if you can point out what I should have done instead). The last bit may be your opinion, but it is rather strongly worded; it's better not to use words such as "destruction" when it comes to reorganising category trees in a way you don't like. Hopefully that clears things up?  
My intention is to upmerge rather than outright delete these categories. Even though deletion is the result, the contents of the former categories will be preserved in their parent categories, and the logbooks will note which categories were merged into which. E.g. battles in New York state will still be in Category:Military history of New York (state), where readers and editors alike can still find them. This upmerging is based on WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN, a guideline which has existed since about 2007. If you think there is something wrong with that guideline, you are free to raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Military history. Making arguments here at CFD for why this guideline should not apply to the United States, however, is not very helpful.
Besides, practically speaking, the main article List of American Revolutionary War battles already mentions the state in which each battle took place. This is one single page for all you want readers to know about the location of these battles, right? NLeeuw (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, per guideline. In the nomination the articles are kept at a state level, there is no destroyal taking place. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    destruction*. Otherwise I agree. ;) NLeeuw (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the larger categories and merge the ones with very few members per WP:NARROWCAT and WP:DIFFUSE. Merging the larger categories would make the category tree less useful for readers. The nom may prefer the list to the categories, but lists and categories can coexist without conflict. - Eureka Lott 14:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should explain that I have only noted how many P and C there are in each of them as a secondary argument, but according to WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN (the primary argument), it doesn't matter what size the category is, as all such "battles in X" categories are considered inappropriate. (Even if we were to keep the "large" ones, which categories would you consider "large" and which ones "small"?)
    My remark that the list already mentions the locations anyway is intended to address the concern of Hmains, the creator of these categories, that valuable information or overview might be lost if the proposal receives approval, because the list covers it. Personally, I'm not sure if it is necessary to mention the locations in any list or category, but keeping them in the list while upmering the categories seems an acceptable compromise to me.
    I hope this may help to understand the rationale. NLeeuw (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem that WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN attempts to address—issues arising when modern and historical names differ—is largely irrelevant here. The boundaries of South Carolina, for instance, are the same now as they were during this conflict. You're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. - Eureka Lott 14:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lots of states, provinces and especially territories didn't have their modern boundaries yet. More importantly, WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN doesn't say anywhere that it doesn't apply in some places, but not in others. It's a universal rule, it should be applied everywhere. If someone thinks there should be exceptions to the rule, they're free to start the process of seeking to amend it. But until it is amended, we should apply the guideline as it is, and not engage in special pleading.
    Given the many recent precedents in both the category space and the article space, there is a running consensus to phase out "battles in Fooland" categories and articles. NLeeuw (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MILMOS is a style manual. Despite your protestations, it doesn't automatically override our categorization guidelines. You're veering into WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory with these assertions. - Eureka Lott 23:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia and Maine did not exist as defined areas during this war let alone separate colonies which is exactly the problem that WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN is trying to avoid. I don't think placing these in the contemporary colony would make sense since the undefined western boundaries were still Native American controlled, regardless of what European maps claimed. And good luck sorting out the as-of-then unresolved competing claims on Vermont! - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. The location of the battles is not disputed and some of these categories are quite large.--User:Namiba 21:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Substitution tracking templates

edit
Nominator's rationale: Unclear if this is used anymore by any template as it isn't found in an "insource" search. If still used the category description should be updated with where this is used from. Gonnym (talk) 10:08, 23 June 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.--User:Namiba 21:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Proto-Mongols

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge, the category only contains the eponymous article and a subcategory. That is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:34, 23 June 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]

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]
  • If renamed, Nuon (DVD technology) should be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Many games come on DVD, so this proposed title is too vague to ever work. Honestly I'd just say Delete unless the nominator can articulate what makes these games special. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historic buildings and structures in the United States

edit
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:SUBJECTIVECAT)
We have plenty of objective categories for historic buildings like Category:National Register of Historic Places, Category:Historic Hotels of America, and Category:Oakland Designated Landmarks. This category is different because, in my subjective opinion, the Citigroup Center is not historic but, in the subjective opinion of another editor, it is. That's really all it takes to add an article to this tree! - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes: Not many full merges are necessary because I went through all the individual articles to make sure none of them would be orphaned; however, a number of subcategories would need to be selectively reparented to stay in their category tree. If this nomination passes I'll have a follow up one for the sibling categories which have different heritage register situations. An earlier nomination in 2018 ended in "no consensus" with the following participants: @Marcocapelle, SportingFlyer, Thincat, Black Falcon, and Good Olfactory:. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, subjective qualification for a building if it is not listed on a heritage register. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors of the Republic of Venice 2

edit
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 11#Category:Ambassadors of the Republic of Venice to the Kingdom of Sardinia. WP:MFN. There are many, many underpopulated (1 to 4 P) ambassador cats like this. Recommend future follow-ups for Category:Ambassadors of Aragon, Category:Ambassadors of North Yemen, Category:Ambassadors of the Duchy of Milan, amongst others. NLeeuw (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


June 22

edit

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]

Category:All WikiProject Color pages

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: withdrawn. I realize my mistake now, and am going to edit the category's header to remove a misused template. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No other WikiProject has a comprehensive list of members. It is also tagged as NA-Class, which does not match the intended purpose. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This category feeds the user:HotArticlesBot for updating Wikipedia:WikiProject Color/Hot articles. Curran919 (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: There are literally hundreds of such categories, including Category: All WikiProject Medicine articles, Category: WikiProject Geology articles, Category: WikiProject Biology articles, Category: WikiProject Agriculture articles, etc. They are created by the WikiProject templates. And NA class is for "A page that does not fit into any other category. Used as a 'catch-all' by all WikiProjects." That seems to be a good place to put something like a tracking category used by software (rather than a category intended for human browsing). Nosferattus (talk) 14:50, 23 June 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:Television series based on novels

edit
Nominator's rationale: Categories without a clear point of distinction from their parents. In theory, a distinction could be drawn between television series and television films, but the parent category isn't actually doing that: there's no Category:Television films based on novels at all, and instead virtually everything in Category:Television shows based on novels or its "Television shows based on [Country] novels" subcategories is a series (sometimes even with this and one or more of those both sitting alongside each other), so in actual practice this undergrown sapling is just duplicating the parent tree unnecessarily. And even populating it more fully would just entail moving virtually everything out of the parents anyway, so they'd still just be fundamentally redundant to each other.
I'm willing to withdraw this if there's any kind of editorial will to start creating and populating "Television films based on novels" categories to sister this, but as things currently stand this isn't offering a clear differentiation from its parent. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:B-Class vital articles in Games

edit
Nominator's rationale: Categories for vital article classifications that do not exist, and some others of questionable usefulness. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

X in the Republic of Artsakh

edit
Nominator's rationale: Country no longer exists, so there is no justification to keeping these around. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Wikipedia stores historical information as well. When the country existed, it had various things. - Altenmann >talk 21:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, we only keep content about former countries insofar they are directly or indirectly related to history (an example of an indirect relationship is a people subcategory). We do not have e.g. Category:Mountains of the Roman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated places in the Republic of Artsakh

edit
Nominator's rationale: The Republic of Artsakh no longer exists, and all of these are likely in a subcategory of Category:Populated places in Azerbaijan. There is no clear consensus on what happens if a country ceases to exist — the only other times this happened during Wikipedia's existence was the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 2003, and Serbia and Montenegro in 2006. The most recent precedent I could find was Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_December_13#Architecture_in_Serbia_and_Montenegro, but there are older precedents such as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/February_2007#Category:Wikipedians_in_Serbia_and_Montenegro and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_7#Category:Indoor_arenas_in_Serbia_and_Montenegro which happened shortly after Serbia and Montenegro ceased to exist. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Submerged settlements in X

edit
Nominator's rationale: Settlement is not standard for categories, and there is no reason to limit the categories to settlements. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Settlements demolished to make room for airports

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category name is not standardized, but because there is no parallel I am not sure if it should exist. Should we have a Category:Populated places forcibly depopulated by eminent domain for the non-ghost towns on the list? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Polish social activists of the Prussian partition

edit
Nominator's rationale: This category should either be merged or renamed to make it clearer how this is defining. Mason (talk) 01:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This question is part of a wider issue concerning the categorisation of "Polish people" during the Partition period from 1795 to 1918. Last year I tried to address it, but no consensus emerged: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland/Archive 19#Categorisation of Category:Polish people of the partition period.
In short: we'll need to choose whether we mean "Polish" as an ethnicity (as Marcocapelle suggested), or as a nationality (as Mason is indirectly suggesting, since Category:Polish activists is in the Category:Activists by nationality tree). Ethnicity is always a difficult one to establish and results in lots of sourcing problems, and it means we can't put these people in the Category:Polish people tree (because it is part of the Category:People by nationality tree). So nationality seems the best approach. For our purposes here, the Prussian partition is best understood as the Grand Duchy of Posen, though it is a little more complicated than that (I'll get back to that).
But how do we grant a Polish "nationality" in a time when they did not have a state? My proposal was to recognise certain historic non-sovereign entities as "Polish":
 
1815:
  Grand Duchy of Posen (Prussian Partition)
  Congress Poland (Russian Partition)
  Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria (Austrian Partition)
  Free City of Kraków (independent until 1846)
Should we categorise all inhabitants of these polities as having "Polish nationality", or not? Currently, only inhabitants of Congress Poland and the preceding Duchy of Warsaw are deliberately categorised as Category:Polish people.
Until we resolve that question, it's probably difficult to do anything with these Polish Partition categories. We do not want to erase Polish history, but it's really challenging to categorise it either. NLeeuw (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For the second time, thoughts on the (new) alt rename target Smasongarrison?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish Palestine Liberation Organization members

edit
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCEGRS and possibly WP:NONDEF. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Defining characteristic WP:COPDEF, not some random members of the PLO who happen to be Jewish. No, their significance is in being Jewish members of the PLO. --Yabroq (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: this person is the creator of this category. Either way, one article is not enough to justify keeping a category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only one article in the category, this is not helpful for navigation between related articles. No objection to recreate the category when some more articles can be added. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Drake & Josh video games

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category only consists of two articles. There were no other Drake and Josh games produced. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman generals

edit
Nominator's rationale: Uphelpful bundling of Roman people. This category contains Ancient Romans and Byzantine people. Mason (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should have. It's not accurate to consider it a separate empire, historical revisionism.★Trekker (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but that's not really responsive to nom. It's not helpful to have a Category:Roman generals by century when there's not even a regular generals by century category.Mason (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles of the War of 1812 in Canada

edit
Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 6#Category:Battles of the War of 1812 by state. See also recent precedents, e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 24#Battles by location in Germany. NLeeuw (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not merge There is nothing stated in WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN that requires the deletion of geographic sub-categories within a 'battles of xx war' category. And doing so will harm the reader's navigation to desired articles, forcing them to mentally merge several requests together and open and read multiple articles together to obtain information such as 'what are the battles of the War of 1812 in Canada?' or 'what are the battles of the war of 1812 in Ontario?' WP information consists not only of article content but also the category structure. This is destroying content. Thanks Hmains (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:29, 22 June 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]

Category:Rashidun governors of Ta'if

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete for now, currently only 1-2 articles in each category, this is not helpful for navigation. No objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 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]

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]

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]

Category:Jews and Judaism in Portland, Maine

edit
Nominator's rationale: Merge with parent category. The people in this category should be moved to Category:Jews from Maine. That leaves one synagogue and a school. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:29, 22 June 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]

Category:Cross-platform free software (BSD; Linux; macOS; Windows)

edit

Propose merging to all parents:
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining/trivial intersection. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per nom, this sort of disambiguation does not follow Wikipedia policy in the slightest. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


June 21

edit

Category:Major League Baseball Triple Crown winners

edit
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Its not an award that can be won, its an achievement which is earned. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Universidad Del Pacífico – Ecuador alumni

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category lacks the requisite sourcing and the main article for the category has been deleted. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Roads in South Africa

edit
Nominator's rationale: In South Africa, a National Road is a road that is the responsibility of SANRAL while a National Route is a road that has the letter N in its designation, as stated in the National routes (South Africa) article. Looking at what the main article for the category is, I propose a change (simply change Roads to routes). GeographicAccountant (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crime action films

edit
Nominator's rationale: Hybrid genre term that is not in common usage (unlike lets say, action comedy or even action thriller). Searching for it on google, gives one imdb list, then several lists for one genre or the other. Per the action film article, "Action films often interface with other genres. Yvonne Tasker wrote that films are often labelled action thrillers, action-fantasy and action-adventure films with different nuances." Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I'd include the sub-categories within this general category again, but I suppose that is implied in this process. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating the following:

Does this do the job @Marcocapelle:? Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - large enough and common-enough to be kept. Netflix has a "Crime Action & Adventure Movies" category. Amazon has a "Best Sellers in Crime Action Fiction" category. The category structure is well-maintained & populated: ~400 pages, all of which contain crime.action|action.crime. Also, it sounds like nom might want to rename to "action-crime", which, if there's consensus for, would be preferable to deletion.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An anonymous sorting algorithm on netflix is not really a way to seriously categorize genre, same for the Amazon section which also appears to be sorting novels, not films. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest reading Action film#Hybrid genres before responding if possible. From academic points of view, categorizing genres by hybrids is not really useful on understanding what they are about and when they are applied by fans, journalists, historians etc., the terms are used vaguely and with various connotations to what the genre means. This is why having them categorized like this is not helpful. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "I would suggest reading Action film#Hybrid genres": you mean the part you added 3 hours before basing this CfD off of it?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This was a section added months ago, i've re-vised it on reading the source in question, which was selectively using what was sourced. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: Action films are synonymous with violence, and crime films are not complete without that. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning support, I can't really imagine crime films without action. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As said above, we don't really need a hybrid form of this per Crime action film. There is no set definition of hybrid genres and trying to view films as these hybrids is basically a fools errand. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is often the case that film genres are crossed over as catgeories that are not actually reflective of legitimate and verifiable sub-genres (such as "romantic comedy" or "horror comedy", for example). So is that the case here? I randomly plucked out some of the films in the category and the genre of "crime action" doesn't appear defining for any of them. The genre for Heat (1995 film) is sourced to Rotten Tomatoes which lists the genre as "crime, drama". The "crime action" genre for The Batman (film) is not supported by sources, and whilst Allmovie lists several genres (include crime and action) it does not list the sub-genre of "crime action", unlike Pretty Woman which lists Romance, Comedy and the combination "Romantic Comedy". The genre for The Girl in the Spider's Web (film) is also sourced to Allmovie (inaccurately I might add), and whilst it does not list "crime action" it does list "crime thriller". In these cases the presence of the article in the category appears to be the product of editorial synthesis, unsupported by sources i.e. it may be possible to source "action" or "crime" but "crime action" or "action crime" is not in itself sourced. Are any supporters of the category able to provide reliable source evidence for the films in this category belonging a sub-genre of "crime-action"? It may be possible to locate sources that substantiate the existence of the genre, but membership of a category also needs to satisfy WP:CATDEF too.
Betty Logan (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Existing genre that deserves a category. I completely disagree with the idea that crime films should always include action! Just because a film contains a murder does not make it an action film (nor a crime action film, for that matter). See:
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199587261.001.0001/acref-9780199587261-e-0165#:~:text=An%20extremely%20wide%2Dranging%20group,central%20element%20of%20their%20plots.
As for films defined as CA or C-A films, at random:
https://www.michigandaily.com/arts/film/the-roundup-a-womanless-riskless-ruthless-rush/
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/art/2024/06/398_356945.html
https://oxfordre.com/criminology/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-195 (mentioning Rush Hour as a c-a franchise), for example. A GB search shows various results for crime/action, which sometimes indicate it's a new genre: The hybrid nature – and commercial success – of the Bourne films is characteristic of a new style of crime film, the crime/action[1] but plenty with either "crime action films"(or film/movie) or "crime-action films". A note defining the genre as an hybrid could be added on the category page. (Have a look at the category in other languages).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term is without a doubt used in common place, but there is no solid definition for it, as the case for most hybrid genres. Why bother separating them? What does it add? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I can google the term and find people using it, but reading the actual article on action films it states very clearly that these types of terms are used with different values and meaning. There is no solid definition of these hybrid genres. Your Sarah Casey sources only emphasizes that yes, hybrid genres exist, but reading the wiki article, most films past the 90s are hybrids and there is no common meaning with this. As there are none, it fails WP:CATDEF. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Benyahia, Sarah Casey (2012-02-27). Crime. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-58182-3.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a distinctive genre in its own right. Dimadick (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone keeps saying this but nobody has offered any proof outside brief mentions of it. Why vote keep if nobody can describe these elements outside vague hybrids? Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notifying WP:ORN for feedback...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete poor rationale provided by keep votes and poor definition of category.
Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no particular pressing need to separate this subgenre, as opposed to simply putting pages in both the "crime" and "action" film categories. It is rather common for crime to happen in action films, simply as a matter of course, making the definition of this subgenre vague at best. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles involving the Qarmatians

edit
Nominator's rationale: These battles concern a specific subgroup of Qarmatians, namely those of the Qarmatian 'republic' of Bahrayn under the al-Jannabi family. This was the main Qarmatian group, but by no means the only one, and at any rate it should be distinguished. Other "Qarmatian" battles, like the Battle of Hama (even though the Qarmatian label is debatable here), are not included. Constantine ✍ 07:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor question: why Bahrayn instead of Bahrain? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because that is the most common transliteration in the literature. It also does not refer to the modern state of Bahrain, but the whole region of Eastern Arabia (historical Bahrayn/Bahrain). Constantine ✍ 14:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nom just created parent Category:Qarmatian state of Bahrayn 4 minutes before proposing to rename this child category. But the grandparent is Category:Qarmatians, and the main article is Qarmatians. Google-Booksing "Qarmatian state of Bahrayn" yields only 5 results. "Bahrain" is evidently the WP:COMMONNAME, there is no apparent need for this renaming, nor for the redundant new layer Category:Qarmatian state of Bahrayn created by nom. I suggest reverting to the situation of 3 June 2024. NLeeuw (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nom has actually worked on this topic and may be suggesting this move because of this knowledge, not just because of a flight of fancy. Qarmatianism is a broader phenomenon than the Qarmatian state of Bahrayn, hence the two should be kept separate, with the Qarmatians remaining as the overarching parent category/article. There ideally should be a different, dedicated parent article for the state, like ru:Карматское государство, but one thing at a time. Constantine ✍ 07:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are there "Battles involving the Qarmatians" that DON'T involve Bahrayn? Because if there aren't, I'm not sure this change is necessary. Liz Read! Talk! 17:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Main article Qarmatians has an Infobox former country and an Infobox war faction, both of which provide exactly the same beginning and end dates of 899–1077.
    It also claims that it all started with Bahrain and ended with Bahrain (or Bahrayn if you will):
    • Start: Eventually, from Qatar, he captured Bahrain's capital Hajr and al-Hasa in 899, which he made the capital of his state...
    • End: According to the maritime historian Dionisius A. Agius, the Qarmatians finally disappeared in 1067, after they lost their fleet at Bahrain Island and were expelled from Hasa near the Arabian coast by the chief of Banu, Murra ibn Amir.
    1067 may be a typo, as the rest of the article insists on 1077, referring to Overthrow of the Qarmatians, which is dated to 1058–1077.
    Finally, the example of Battle of Hama is so ambiguous as to what the "Qarmatians" have to do with it (which is discussed at length in the article itself, with good sources), that it cannot count as evidence for non-Bahraini "Qarmatians".
    In short, there seems to be no difference. NLeeuw (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But the Battle of Hama is counted as a Qarmatian battle by primary sources, and will be found as such even in some modern literature. And no, the Qarmatians != Bahrayn, no matter what the article currently claims. Bahrayn was the only successful Qarmatian state, but Qarmatianism is broader than that, with adherents across the Middle East, of lesser prominence due to the lack of state power, but still following their own doctrines and with their own histories. Constantine ✍ 16:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As said, the Battle of Hama is questionable, as other primary sources contradict it, and many modern scholars do not think it involved Qarmatians (read Battle of Hama#Background). Have you got examples of battles other than Hama that supposedly involved non-Bahraini Qarmatians? NLeeuw (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: (Sorry, wrong CfD)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wesean National Leaders

edit
Nominator's rationale: This counts as a WP:HOAX. Nothing called "Wesea" actually exists. It is an aspiration for certain separatist political movements. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, indeed. That is why I didn't use WP:G3 as my rationale. The issue is deeper than just being an empty category. But even G3 should be good enough, for now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Legendary creatures

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, largely overlapping categories. I will tag both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. "Legendary" supposes that there might be some truth to it, but all contents here seem to fall outside of the realm of serious modern biology. NLeeuw (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At the moment, "Legendary" sits above "Folklore" and "Mythological creatures" - rather a lot of the contents of the first two should probably be moved to the last. As a matter of English meaning, I don't think "Legendary" supposes that there might be some truth to it" is at all true. "legendary" suggests to me a literary source(s) somewhere quite early on, & I think there is a distinction, if a rather vague one. Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment "legendary" sits above, but the hierarchy could just as well be reversed because there isn't a clear distinction. The fact that the above two editors disagree on what Legendary means illustrates the confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm not necessarily opposed to merging related folklore/legend/mythology categories together, I don't know which goes where. AHI-3000 (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I assume a redirect would be needed after merging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect certainly seems helpful, especially if we agree a merger is a good idea, but are in doubt about the best target. One way or the other, readers and editors will thus find their way. NLeeuw (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Legends are a distinct type of folklore, and place their narratives within human history. Dimadick (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge Per nom so that the original single category for this is restored, for the most part the contents of the category have nothing to do with being from folklore, and it's an WP:OVERLAPCAT anyway with folklore falling under the purview of legends. The article itself is Legendary creature. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Either Keep, or do the following: Rename Category:Mythological creatures to Category:Creatures in myth and legend, and Rename Category:Folklore creatures to Category:Creatures in folklore. Then selectively Split Category:Legendary creatures to each of those renamed categories. I think I said this in a previous discussion on CfD, but the Myth/Legend/Folklore distinction is a bit fluid in the sources. I think for our purposes, if we use Folklore as the overall term, and then have a separate "in myth and legend" (or "in myths and legends", if preferred), then I think that should resolve most things, and help a bit more to guide editors away from applying WP:OR. But we need to be careful about Myth, especially in regards to people and creatures, because belief and religion can be involved there. - jc37 20:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Romans from Africa

edit
Nominator's rationale: rename, many of these people were not Romans. Aligning this with e.g. Category:Roman-era people by ethnicity. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some more explicit support/opposition to various potential names for the categories would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Violence in the Palestinian territories

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge, all four articles in the category are about events after the establishment of the State of Palestine. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.
NLeeuw (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @@Marcocapelle: Do you think no category is needed for the broader Palestinian territories and the events before the state establishment? --Mhhossein talk 06:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly. Which articles are you thinking of in particular? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No special case at the moment, but there should be cases of violence ocurring in the Palestinian territories before the state establishment? --Mhhossein talk 06:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point. The State of Palestine didn't exist until 1988, while Palestinian territories have existed since 1967 (or 1949), depending on definition.VR (Please ping on reply) 09:25, 10 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) 01:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian commercial artists

edit
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining type of artist. Notably there is not a parent category of commercial artists as far as I can find. Mason (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Commercial artists create their art for mass duplication: advertising, souvenirs etc. Not like portraitists etc. Doug butler (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, it is almost impossible to differentiate notable artists by "commercial" as so many made a living out of it. If not merged, better rename it to something related to the kind of art. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian flour millers and merchants

edit
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. There's no parent category, and for the most part merchants aren't defined by whether they sold flour or not. Mason (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In Australia millers commonly purchase the grain, mill it, and sell the flour, adding value. So they're millers by trade, not merchants. Doug butler (talk) 03:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mayoralties of municipalities in the United States

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category whose name is a bit confusing and not accurately descriptive of its contents. The contents here are subpages where a political figure (usually a person who went on from the mayoralty to hold much more prominent national offices, and thus has a very, very long biographical article that needed to have stuff chunked out from it for size management) has had a "Mayoralty of [Person]" article created as a spinoff from their base biography -- but that means that the defining characteristic here is "mayoralties of individual people", not "mayoralties of municipalities" (which could be too easily confused with a redundant duplication of Category:Mayors of places in the United States, and thus potentially have stuff misfiled in it by editors who weren't paying attention to the actual contents of the categories.)
So it should likely be renamed to make its intentions clearer. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Symplectic topology

edit
Nominator's rationale: In mathematics, "symplectic geometry" and "symplectic topology" are often (though not universally) understood to be two terms meaning the same thing, usually depending on the author's preference and feelings about how "geometric" the subject is. For examples of this usage, see this SE answer and the fact that Symplectic topology is a redirect to Symplectic geometry. The category Category:Symplectic topology seems to be a duplicate of Category:Symplectic geometry. The latter page claims that there is a difference, as "Topological aspects are often categorized as Category:Symplectic topology". However, I don't think this is how most people use the word. Indeed, looking at the pages, it is hard to believe there is much, if any, adherence to this (very subjective) rule! For example, it seems hard to believe that Symplectic basis and Darboux's theorem are "geometric" but Gromov–Witten invariant and Symplectomorphism are "topological". And most things in both categories seem like they could just as well go into either one! The relevant policies are WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:OVERLAPCAT. I propose merging these categories under the more common term "symplectic geometry" and having the category page for "symplectic topology" be a redirect. This is my first time using CfD, so please forgive any mistakes I make. I am not sure if I am supposed to add the subst:Cfm template to the category that is being merged to as well as the category being merged from. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The topological aspects are so important in this field that the main articles are the same. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If symplectomorphism would be better in Category:Symplectic geometry, which seems a reasonable remark, re-categorise it. Unless Category:Symplectic topology ends up empty, which I think shouldn't happen here, the case for a merge is weak. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have any intuition about whether symplectomorphism is "topological" or "geometric". I think it's arbitrary which one it goes into. One might think a page like Floer homology is "topological", because it is homology, but one might think that Floer homology captures geometric data. Whether this is true depends on whether you think symplectic manifolds and symplectomorphism are "geometric". In the end, I just think there's enough ambiguity there to make all of nearly all of these classifications subjective or overlapping. Can you tell us more of your reasoning? Are there a lot of pages that you think obviously belong under only one of the two categories? Mathwriter2718 (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organisations based in Northeast India

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category:Organisations based in India not subcategorized this way. Gjs238 (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There is already diffusion by state. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saadi Shirazi

edit
Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. Only the writer and work of theirs in the category. Unhelpful for navigation when there are only two pages like this Mason (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the two articles are already directly interlinked. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fox Sports 1 people

edit
Nominator's rationale: These personalities are known for appearing on Fox Sports properties more generally, not necessarily Fox Sports 1. Let'srun (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know about others but I only tried to include people who appear on FS1 shows in the category. Expanding this to include all Fox Sports people is fine but you'd need to go through all the Fox Sports content that isn't on FS1 (such as NFL on Fox, WWE SmackDown, Soccer on Fox Sports, etc.) Soulbust (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said that to say that maybe both categories can exist? As Fox Sports has quite a lot of properties, and the FS1 list wouldn't be small either if it only included individuals who are FS1 personnel - for example Nick Wright or Colin Cowherd. It appears Erin Andrews is in the FS1 category currently, though she would be in the Fox Sports category only, along with anyone else from NFL on Fox (and of course Fox Sports' other shows). Meanwhile, someone like Joel Klatt could fit in both. Soulbust (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meitei goddesses

edit
Nominator's rationale: I haven't listed all of the child categories of this, but the problem is not the parent category. The problem is that the parent category contains a massive 39 largely-overlapping categories for just 24 actual articles. I suggest that every child of this category should be merged back to the parent. PepperBeast (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pepperbeast: I listed them all. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! PepperBeast (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is an evident large overlap in the roles of deities in Meitei mythology. For example, Kounu appears in 24 of the 39 categories. Also merge to respective deities by type, such as Category:Abundance goddesses. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hie, Creator of many of the Categories here. To explain why so many categories were created. I actually created all the "in Meitei mythology" to basically UNCLOUT other categories. Apparently ALL the deities of Meitei mythology are Deities of Everything-and-Its-Neighbour and one of the creator of pages put each and every one (or close to it) in dozens of categories for basically almost every god and goddess. I don't know anything about Meitei Mythology, so I can't tell which god really belong in a category or not (apparently basically all goddesses or close to it are Goddess of Abundance, Beauty, Arts, Fertility, Love and lust, Peace, Magic, among other things...) Though some divinities in each Pantheon can have lots of domains (like Apollo in greek mythology, Sucellos in the celt one), and I can't tell which really belong in each category or not. Still, I note that most don't have anything in the description or a reference that would justify many of the various categories listed (I think one of the rational seems to be that if a goddess is beautiful then she's deemed a goddess of Beauty, Fertility as well as Love and lust, any divinity that is not a warrior is automatically pushed into God/Goddess of Peace and basically all divinities are Fortune ones just by existing, unless linked to something unfortunate...) This caused a bit of a strange situation in the various categories, as for exemple if you went to Category:Abundance goddesses to have a look at the goddesses of this domain, half the goddesses (17 out of 34) were the Meitei Goddesses alone, the other half for ALL the other Pantheons in the world put together... Same with the other categories, 20 out of the 44 pages in Category:Beauty goddesses were the Meitei goddesses, 19 out of the 47 pages of Category:Fortune goddesses, etc. Though when so many categories in a pagebelongs to just one other pantheon, usually creating a child page is preferable. --Zeynel (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consequence of this is that a lot of purging is needed. That can happen simultaneously with the merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category contents were changed without clear explanation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know if it matters but the categories that were emptied after this CFD discussion was opened are:
Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 22 June 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]

Category:Australian newspaper proprietors

edit
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. Mason (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three functions: Owner, publisher and editor. Often separated, for instance politicians may be newspaper owners but not publisher or editor. Influence without responsibility. Pastoralists may inherit a loss-making paper and subsidise its continued operation. Doug butler (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no other categories in this tree that make that distinction. Further, I'm pretty sure that there's a cfd that closed on similar newpaper owners, if I'm recalling. Mason (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, in many articles in both categories it is unclear whether they are about proprietors or about publishers without ownership. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of Hearts talk 05:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auto racing teams

edit
Extended content
Nominator's rationale: Most of these categories were speedily renamed to their current names from the proposed names in May 2023. Discussions at the Formula One WikiProject and the Motorsport WikiProject resolved that these speedy renames should be reversed because, unlike many other sporting teams, auto racing teams may compete all over the world and their national identity is defined by their racing licence and is not necessarily related to the location of their base of operations. Consider the current Formula One World Champions: Red Bull Racing - they are universally recognised as an Austrian team (they use an Austrian racing licence and when they win a race, the Austrian national anthem is played) but their base of operations is in England. The category rename in May 2023 moved the article from the accurate Category:Austrian auto racing teams to the inaccurate Category:Auto racing teams in Austria. DH85868993 (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: because I don't want to close a 44-category CfD as "unopposed".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of Hearts talk 04:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vassal rulers of the Umayyad Caliphate

edit
Nominator's rationale: 2 P. WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Just delete. Whether someone was a "vassal" or not can be quite arbitrary, and neither of the parent cats really applies: these princes of Armenia were not "people from the Umayyad Caliphate" or part of its government. At most, they were part of its foreign relations. As the catdesc indicates, these were not 'caliphal-appointed governors', and therefore not part of the internal governance. NLeeuw (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Vassal rulers are easily distinguished by the fact that they bore princely rather than gubernatorial titles and were usually hereditary and at least somewhat autonomous. They are also clearly designated as such by modern scholarship. Armenia was very much part of the Umayyad Caliphate, just as much as the Khanate of Khiva was of the Russian Empire or the various Indian princes were of the British Raj. Constantine ✍ 16:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, princes aren't necessarily vassals and it is not very clear from these articles that the subjects were in fact vassals. The articles are already in appropriate Armenian and monarchs categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Precisely, princes are not necessarily vassals; which means that they need to be distinguished when they are not, in fact, sovereign rulers, but rule at the mercy of an imperial power. Constantine ✍ 16:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of Hearts talk 04:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Cplakidas: rule of the Umayyad Caliphate in Armenia was not firmly established in this period and Ashot II Bagratuni is mostly notable for fighting against the Umayyad Caliphate. I really don't think you can call them vassals. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that having Ashot II in the category is probably not correct. But 'firm rule' is not a prerequisite of vassalage, indeed it is precisely because states can't or don't want to bother to establish firm rule that they establish vassal relationships (if we don't focus only on the European feudal vassal-liege relationship). The title of prince of princes could only be claimed by the backing of an imperial power, whether Byzantium or the Umayyads, from whose hands these Armenian rulers received their title, by definition becoming vassals of the imperial power. Some Armenian princes were able to exercise more or less autonomy, or shift from one patron to the other, exploiting temporary changes in the balance of power. That does not change the fact that they had a subordinate political relationship to an empire. Indeed this is no different to the exactly identical relationship they had with the Abbasid Caliphate, only that by that time Arab suzerainty was far more solidified than under the Umayyads. Constantine ✍ 12:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian universalists by nationality

edit
Nominator's rationale: Per this conversation, "Universalism" is not a denomination. I am bringing this to CfD per Smasongarrison's suggestion to confirm that others agree that this revision by Neddyseagoon is inappropriate and should be undone. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, my request was to get feedback on whether universalism should be parented by denomination or placed in the main category as a philosophy/theory. I never said that the revision from 2016 was inappropriate, I said that was a stable edit. I don't have a strong opinion, on the parent category, but I did want others to weigh in about how it should be categorized. Mason (talk) 04:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I misrepresented you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert the re-parenting per nom. Universalism is a theological concept with advocates and opponents but it is not a denomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sixteen Kingdoms Buddhist monks

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge, the Sixteen Kingdoms contains partially parallel and mostly very short-living kingdoms, typically a few decades. No need to categorize Buddhist monks by each of them separately. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Mason (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scottish women embroiderers

edit
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. This is a non-defining intersection between the type of textile artist and gender. Mason (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pretenders to the Mexican throne

edit
Nominator's rationale: WP:OR WP:NPOV WP:BLP (Maximilian von Götzen-Iturbide states: Götzen does not pursue any claim to the throne...Despite Götzen not actively pursuing any claim himself, social media users claiming to be Mexican monarchists have posted their support of his claim., therefore also WP:NONDEFINING). Follow-up to recent deletion of main article Pretenders to the Mexican throne, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretenders to the throne of Mexico. See also User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Pretenders#NLeeuw category list.
Some deceased people in this category also appear to be inappropriately labelled pretenders:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Associated TfD was closed as delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Whitewashing in film

edit
Nominator's rationale: WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Populated by tangentially related films and not articles from the main topic. Gotitbro (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as I am not sure what you mean by “tangential” as all of the categorised films has an element of whitewashing that is discussed in Whitewashing in film article or mentioned in the film page itself using reliable sources. Take the film Khartoum (film), with blackface white actors which is discussed in the “Reception” section. It does not get more direct than that.
FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps should have worded that nomination better. What I meant was with categories such as these, the expectation is that there will be articles dedicated to the topic not articles mostly about films which only contain an element of the said cat.
I am coming at this from a recent discussion about a similar topic: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Subcategories of Category:Film controversies by country. Gotitbro (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but that is not the policy you have cited and the example you have cited is irrelevant as I said, these instances of whitewashing are discussed using reliable sources.
This is more like your personal preference and expectations which is not supported by policies. A Cat need to be a characteristic of the subject as described in reliable sources see WP:CATDEF. FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle, are you suggesting a category that would include only documentaries on the topic of whitewashing? Dimadick (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Purge articles that do not currently mention whitewashing in film, but keep as a valid and useful subcat of Category:Casting controversies in film. I checked a few members, and they each had a paragraph that specifically covered this topic. However, I removed Argo (2012 film) where there had been a consensus on the talk page to remove such a paragraph, but the categories had been left on the article until now. – Fayenatic London 09:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as the articles mention whitewashing. Race-related controversies in film and Casting controversies in film are similar and don't appear to have been contested. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To me the big concern is that the category looks like an assertion in Wikivoice that the film in question (I suppose not all the articles are about individual films, but let's just consider that case for the moment) engaged in whitewashing. To assert that in Wikivoice, it should be the consensus of sources, not just the opinion of someone who can be reliably sourced. Maybe rename to clarify? --Trovatore (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct Catholic schools in Louisville, Kentucky

edit
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. There's only one page in here, and no other city (or state) level categories in Defunct Catholic schools in the United States Mason (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split as proposed. This seems eminently reasonable, and I have no idea why I saw the necessity for this category nearly 18 years ago. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 02:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh wait, there probably used to be more entries at some point that ended up being deleted. That's my guess. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 02:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's probably what happened. There's definitely been changes to how notability for schools should be handled, so its totally reasonable that it made sense at the time. Mason (talk) 04:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


June 20

edit

Category:Permadeath games

edit
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with similar category names in "Video games by gameplay element". Also because I recently created a separate category for permadeath role-playing games. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Insufficiently disambiguated from Category:Permadeath role-playing games. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stereolab songs

edit
Nominator's rationale: Sole entry is a redirect. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:High Peak

edit
Nominator's rationale: Recreation of existing category. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tamil Nadu MLAs 1967–1972

edit
Nominator's rationale: This category is for people elected in the 1967 election. Given that the next election was in 1971, I believe this category's name should be corrected accordingly. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Game of Thrones templates

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category for a single template. Unnecessary level. Add the template to the parent category. Gonnym (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Taste contestants

edit
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There is only one person in this category for a tv show that ran for 3 seasons Mason (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings and structures completed by year, before 1000

edit
494 additional categories
Nominator's rationale: A long list of WP:OCYEAR categories — 504 in total — that all contain 3 or fewer unique articles each, overwhelmingly about religious buildings. However, almost all of these years have enough categories to justify a decade category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge, also to Category:565 establishments, etc. Nom is right, this is a redundant category layer for this period. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge per Marcocapelle. By the way, there are probably several articles about buildings from this era which were never categorized in an establishment category. Dimadick (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dual merge per above discussion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


June 19

edit

Category:Moomin locations

edit
Nominator's rationale: There is only one article in this category, with low chances that it will ever be a meaningful size. Jontesta (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and Marcocapelle. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Princes(ses) by country

edit
Speedy Cfd discussion
  • @Omnis Scientia: shouldn't the standard be the other way around? These seem to be about princes and princesses of a country indeed, in contrast to "barons of" categories which you nominated at full CfD. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle, I'm not fully sure. The naming is uneven in all these categories. But for princes and princesses, I would say "Fooian princes" is the better form since there are also sovereign princes such as the Prince of Monaco and many more throughout history. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I didn't move this one to full Cfd since majority were already "Fooian princes(ses)" so C2C applied here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The usage of "prince" in Prince of Monaco is quite exceptional, in contrast to the usage of the word "prince" as "male member of the family of the monarch". In both cases they are princes of a country though. What otherwise would they be a prince of. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Marcocapelle, would you be is favor of taking it to full Cfd? Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: So we have two options here: Option A: "Fooian princes(ses)"; or Option B: "Princes(ses) of Foo". Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Marcocapelle from the speedy Cfd discussion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SFBB, you can choose the options here. Then the rest of the categories in Category:Princes by country and Category:Princesses by country can be speedied. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly prefer B for accuracy. When you read "Montenegrin princesses" literally then the category could also contain someone born in Montenegro, not as a princess, who marries a Spanish prince. But the intention of the category (inasfar as it concerns marriages) is people from anywhere in the world who marry a Montenegrin prince. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This a hard one. First, both categorizations are not equivalent. German princess is not the same a princess in Germany. E.g. Marie Antoinette was the princess consort of France, but she was not French but German (as any other subject of the HRE; Austrian was not considered a nationality back then). The previous example shows how difficult is to work with nationalities, especially as our understanding of nationalities has changed over time. On the other side, the categorization based on current countries is also problematic. What do we do princesses of Prussia? (no longer in Germany) or princesses of Bohemia? (Czechia? Germany? Austria?). I think this is quite close to WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. I think that the healthiest categorization would be Prince of Entity e.g. Prince of Bohemia, Princess of the Two Sicilies, Prince of Spain, etc. (even if the entity does no longer exist). Every other option just sounds very problematic to me and poised to miscategorization.SFBB (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SFBB, I agree. This one is a bit difficult given how many such places there in Europe alone. @Marcocapelle, any thoughts on SFBB's suggestion? Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three Kingdoms Buddhists

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:NARROWCAT, a relatively short period in Chinese history from 220 to 280 AD does not require splitting in every of the three parallel kingdoms. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Philosophy majors

edit
*Propose deleting Category:Philosophy majors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Non-notable, pointless, one-off categorization. Unnecessary in light of Category:Philosophers. Tkaras1 (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we do not categorize by education level. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is outside the scope of Wikipedia's categorization methods. desmay (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. No one is really defined by their undergraduate major. Mason (talk) 04:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian-themed retailers

edit
Nominator's rationale: The only category of its kind that I can find with the name of a nation and themed retailers on Wikipedia. This category does not make any sense as these are companies with operations in Australia, but are not Australian-themed. Themed would imply something implicit about Australian culture or history. This can be considered to be OR as the majority of articles don't make mention that they are based on the concept of Australian culture.

They would include Bloomin' Brands, Deliveroo, Gillyhicks, Kangaroo (video on demand), KangaRoos, and Kangol. Australia Dairy Company has little to do with it other than materials imported from the country. Australian Homemade is just the name of a sweets company. Bloomin' Brands is just a holding company that owns several restaurant chains.

Outback Steakhouse and Walkabout (pub chain) are the only two businesses with a theme based on Australia, but even then two articles would be too small for a category like this.

The categories that this is under Retailers by type of merchandise sold, Works about Australia, and Retailing in Australia have no relevance as these are not works in terms of literature, films, music, etc. usually considered in the line of popular culture. No evidence they sell Australian-type merchandise if that is even a thing.

And while Retailing in Australia would be considered since a couple of them do business in Australia, they should be in the Retailing category than this one if it applies. Australian Homemade is under Category:Restaurant chains in Australia, under a subcat of Australian brands, which is a subcat of the main Retailing in Australia category. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Albanian basketball players by populated place

edit
Nominator's rationale: Container category containing only two categories. User:Namiba 11:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dual merge per Grutness. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children of two peers and peeresses created life peers

edit
speedy Cfd discussion
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:NONDEF. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kryvyi Rih National University, General Faculty alumni

edit
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Kryvyi Rih National University, General Faculty is a redundant category layer, and the alumni category only has 1 person in it. Mason (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Athletes by religion

edit
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCTRIVIAL, there is a long-standing consensus against intertwining sports and religion on Wikipedia (see here for example), and I struggle to see how these categories are any different. Because the article entries appear to be only from the United States, perhaps there could be a move discussion to something like Category:American Muslim athletes or Category:American athletes by religion as that may have been the creator's intention, but that still would seem to fail the site's category guidelines. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Please note that this differs from Jewish athletes since Judaism is both an ethnicity and a religion (an ethnoreligion) and most Jewish athletes identity as Jewish by virtue of being born Jewish and very few (VERY few) actually convert. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


June 18

edit

Category:Usain Bolt

edit
Nominator's rationale: No need for an eponymous category for one related article. WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I added some pages to the category so there's not just one anymore. There are plenty more that could be added as well – for example, similar to List of career achievements by Michael Johnson or for his book, his foundation, etc. --Habst (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it seems perfectly reasonable and, I imagine, will be more populated with time. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Refugees ennobled in the United Kingdom

edit
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A cross-section between refugees and nobles. While defining seperately, they aren't defining together. Also, one of them was not ennobled but rather married into the British royal family. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fooian Barons

edit
Nominator's rationale: I would have speedied this but will go through Cfd first then the rest can be speedied. Rename; the name can be misleading and I think the correct form should be "Fooian barons", like it is "Fooian baronesses" and so. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No explanation or reason. Why can it be misleading? --Silverije 22:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, these are categories by nationality, not by title. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Barons from the Austrian Empire

edit
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge; only one article. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Japanese films by subject

edit
Nominator's rationale: This category seems to overlap the standard "by topic and country" one. Unless I missed something. (There's no Category:Films by subject and country)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Category:Languages with ISO 639-3 code

edit
Nominator's rationale: Largely redundant, as all major languages and most languages with millions of speakers have one. If we do decide this is a useful category, rename to Category:Languages with ISO 639-3 codes. Remsense诉 10:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mělník geography stubs

edit
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge with template into parent Category:Central Bohemian Region geography stubs. This and the nomination below fail to reach a reasonable number of stubs (around 60 is the usual cut-off). Not understubbed as far as I can tell. Note: if kept, it should be renamed to Category:Mělník District geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Grutness...wha? 06:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FromCzech: pinging. Grutness...wha? 06:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prague-West geography stubs

edit
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge with template into parent Category:Central Bohemian Region geography stubs. This and the nomination above fail to reach a reasonable number of stubs (around 60 is the usual cut-off). Not understubbed as far as I can tell. Note: if kept, it should be renamed to Category:Prague-West District geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).Grutness...wha? 06:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FromCzech: pinging. Grutness...wha? 06:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st century in Nouakchott

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge, there is only one article in the entire tree of Category:History of Nouakchott. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adding two categories that will become empty if this is merged. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northern and Southern dynasties Buddhist monks

edit
Nominator's rationale: merge, narrow intersection between very short-living dynasties (typically a few decades) and religion and occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


June 17

edit

Category:Dead or Alive (franchise) films

edit
Nominator's rationale: To avoid confusion with the Dead or Alive video game franchise. Could also be deleted, as the films have a fairly loose connection between them. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May want to check on the suggested category name; you may have meant or rather than of. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yeah right now the name is quite confusing.★Trekker (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies in the MSCI KLD 400 Social Index

edit
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining category -- one of many indices that these companies would be on. Index's own article doesn't demonstrate notability. Nat Gertler (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - MSCI literally publishes the inclusion criteria/methodology. A company wouldn't "just be on" a list like this (ie Apple isn't). It's exclusive enough (only about 10% of companies in the US). Only reason article doesn't list them all is because there's 400 of them. And that's what a category is for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.190.234 (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That might make it a defined category; that does not make it a defining category of the group's members, one that is likely to be mentioned by appropriate sources covering an individual member... which is the requirement for categorization. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic of a company. If anything, a list might be created, instead of a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For this to be a useful category, when independent reliable sources (probably in the business press) are writing articles about companies that are in the index, those sources would have to mention that, for example, "Company X, a member of the MSCI KLD 400 Social Index, etc." or write articles noting that a company was added to or removed from the Index. Those sorts of mentions would have to be made in reliable sources of a company's inclusion in the Index in order to add a sentence to the article asserting as an important fact about the company that it is in the Index. Then enough such sentences in enough such articles would have to exist before it would make sense to have a category like this. This category in recent days has been added to dozens of articles and although I haven't looked at all of them, the articles I have looked at don't even mention in the body of the article that the company belongs to the Index. This means that the many editors who have worked on these many articles have hitherto not felt that being in the Index was a notable or important fact about the companies they were writing about which might be because reliable news sources don't mention it either, with respect to the companies that belong to the Index. Novellasyes (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the interest of clarity, I should note that the IP user who responded "Keep" above actually did add text mentioning the Index listing to dozens of articles about companies on the Index (in the wake of the category being deleted from a company's page because it was not mentioned in the text.) However, the source they were using was a promotional page for an Index-based fund on Blackrock, which is not only selling a fund based on the index but is one of the companies in the Index. As such, it is not truly an independent source... and even if it were, it's not a source for the listing of a company on the source being significant to that company. I reverted those additions, as so many links to a sales page add up to the strong scent of spam. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay got that thanks! Sorry I missed it. Big old mess, right? Novellasyes (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bergey's volume 1

edit
Nominator's rationale: Apparently the contents of the category are bacterial taxa discussed in volume 1 of Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology. This is not a defining characteristic of the subject of the articles in the category Plantdrew (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Divers from London, Ontario

edit
Nominator's rationale: Delete; only one article. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rugby league players by city or town in Namibia

edit
Nominator's rationale: Delete whole tree. Only one category which only has one article. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:White Southerners (United States)

edit
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category. Half of Americans could conceivably belong to this group. First two applications of this cat (Confederados, Jefferson Davis) demonstrate the user's intention. This new category is associated with category creator's reverted new versions of White Southerners article. BusterD (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of Emmerdale characters

edit
Nominator's rationale: I feel as though that renaming it to 'Category:List of Emmerdale characters'. Reason (rationale) is because I feel as though 'list' makes more sense than 'lists', but idk if the grammar/title is in a correct format so I am brining it to discussion. JuniperChill (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This is not a list of characters, it is a category containing the "lists" of characters and hence should not be renamed. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the category contains multiple lists. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 17 June 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]
  • Comment Theoretically it should include more subcategories, by regional unit, etc.. As such it would fit with the rest of the tree. I think they were even included at some point but I haven't checked in a while. Antondimak (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Antondimak, if this - along with other categories in Category:Sportspeople by location in Greece which I only just noticed - can be populated, I will withdraw the nomination. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember most of these being populated. Now only footballers are. I don't know of any tool to check category history. Antondimak (talk) 14:03, 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]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Antondimak, @Marcocapelle, I've added the remaining categories which have only one category layer. Anton, my best guess is that, if they did exist, they were likely merged or deleted. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For no good reason I'd guess. Do you know of any tool to check category history? Antondimak (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid not but @Marcocapelle may know. Personally, I can't find any Cfd on it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only thing I know, or vaguely remember is better-phrased, is that in Google search you can to some extent find back older versions of a webpage. So this is outside Wikipedia. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Plague doctor

edit
Nominator's rationale: Selective merge/major purge. Only two of the pages actually fit in this category; the rest are medical professionals who treated the plague. Mason (talk) 01:48, 17 June 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"