Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions
If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes. |
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 03:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 155 open requests (. )
Administrators and page movers: Do not use the "Move" tab to move categories listed here!Categories are processed following the 48-hour waiting period and are moved by a bot. |
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).
- Category:The Masters School people to Category:The Masters School alumni – C2A: these are all former students of the school. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Polynomials factorization algorithms to Category:Polynomial factorization algorithms – C2A. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Reuss to Category:Imperial County of Reuss – C2D: per Imperial County of Reuss. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Jewish Confederates to Category:Confederate Jews – C2C: matches Category:American Jews and Category:Colonial American Jews and so on. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Pacific theatre of World War II to Category:Pacific War – Category name follows main article. Gryffindor (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:HP servers to Category:HPE servers – C2A, HP and HPE aren't the same Professional Adriazeri (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Navistar International to Category:Navistar, C2D with Navistar which was renamed from Navistar International in 2022. Kerisineah (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have only tagged the category now--Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Rugby league in the Hawke's Bay to Category:Rugby league in Hawke's Bay – C2C: consistency with all the other subcategories of Category:Hawke's Bay. Nurg (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Vatican sportspeople to Category:Vatican City sportspeople
– C2C: Parent/Grandparent is Category:Vatican City people by occupation, and the norm is Vatican City FOO Mason (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:P. League+ Finals to Category:P. League+ finals – C2D: To match the various year P. League+ finals article titles. Dicklyon (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Shakti Peethas to Category:Shakta pithas – Main page has been moved to Shakta pithas as per RM. Jovian Eclipse 09:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- REDIRECT Category:People from Menominee, Wisconsin to Category:People from Menomonie, Wisconsin per WP:C2D. There is no "Menominee, Wisconsin", there's a "Menominee County, Wisconsin", and a "Menomonie, Wisconsin", both of those already have categories. The people in the category seem like they should be listed with Menomonie. Asdasdasdff (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- DELETE Category:Luhansk People's Republic–Russia relations per WP:C2F. The eponymous article is already in the parent categories, as for similar categories below. Place Clichy (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- DELETE Category:Donetsk People's Republic–Russia relations – WP:C2F
- DELETE Category:South Ossetia–Transnistria relations – WP:C2F
- DELETE Category:Abkhazia–Transnistria relations – WP:C2F
- DELETE Category:Abkhazia–Vanuatu relations – WP:C2F
- DELETE Category:Abkhazia–Tuvalu relations – WP:C2F
- DELETE Category:Abkhazia–Syria relations – WP:C2F
- DELETE Category:Abkhazia–Nicaragua relations – WP:C2F
- DELETE Category:Abkhazia–Nauru relations – WP:C2F
- Category:T1 League Finals to Category:T1 League finals – C2D: To make the names of the articles; basketball finals are not generally capped. Dicklyon (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Albums recorded at Studio Miraval to Category:Albums recorded at Miraval Studios – C2D: To match with Miraval Studios which was recently renamed. Keep current name as a redirect. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Cemeteries in Nakhchivan to Category:Cemeteries in the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic – C2C: per Category:Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic, C2D: per Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:History of Nakhchivan to Category:History of the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic
- Category:Destroyed Armenian churches in Nakhchivan to
Category:Destroyed Armenian churches in the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republicto Category:Destroyed Armenian Apostolic churches in the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic - Category:Destroyed Armenian monasteries in Nakhchivan to
Category:Destroyed Armenian monasteries in the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republicto Category:Destroyed Armenian Apostolic monasteries in the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic - Category:Transportation in Nakhchivan to Category:Transportation in the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic
- I think the two Armenian categories hold only Armenian Apostolic buildings, so adding the word Apostolic would fit with both contents and parent categories C2C. – Fayenatic London 08:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: by all means. I initially thought that would not qualify for speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think the two Armenian categories hold only Armenian Apostolic buildings, so adding the word Apostolic would fit with both contents and parent categories C2C. – Fayenatic London 08:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Qutb Shahi dynasty to Category:Sultanate of Golconda – C2D. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, this would remove the content from the tree of Category:Shia dynasties. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm aware, however once this is moved Category:Sultans of Golconda should be moved to replace Category:Qutb Shahi dynasty as that cat includes the members of the dynasty. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- I do not agree with that move either because it would remove the sultans from the tree of Category:Sultans. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle I see. So then make the cat Category:Sultanate of Golconda manually one level higher than Category:Qutb Shahi dynasty? There's no reason that the main category for the Sultanate of Golconda topic shouldn't be Category:Sultanate of Golconda. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Potentially a reason for Category:Sultanate of Golconda not to exist is that there aren't any wikipedia articles about events that took place in this sultanate. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle There are, they just aren't in the Qutb Shahi dynasty cat because it wouldn't make sense to have events in a dynasty cat; Siege of Golconda and Willem Leyel's war on Golconda are two examples. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, the category exists now. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- What is now the proposal for the move? Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, the category exists now. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle There are, they just aren't in the Qutb Shahi dynasty cat because it wouldn't make sense to have events in a dynasty cat; Siege of Golconda and Willem Leyel's war on Golconda are two examples. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Potentially a reason for Category:Sultanate of Golconda not to exist is that there aren't any wikipedia articles about events that took place in this sultanate. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle I see. So then make the cat Category:Sultanate of Golconda manually one level higher than Category:Qutb Shahi dynasty? There's no reason that the main category for the Sultanate of Golconda topic shouldn't be Category:Sultanate of Golconda. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- I do not agree with that move either because it would remove the sultans from the tree of Category:Sultans. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm aware, however once this is moved Category:Sultans of Golconda should be moved to replace Category:Qutb Shahi dynasty as that cat includes the members of the dynasty. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, this would remove the content from the tree of Category:Shia dynasties. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Women Indian independence activists to Category:Indian women independence activists – C2B: word ordering is "Indian women" activists Mason (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Smasongarrison I would question this. Current name includes non-Indian women who were Indian independence activists, such as Sarla Behn and Annie Besant. TSventon (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm happy to remove the non-indian folks, and put them into a new category of Activists for Indian independence. Mason (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, it looks like Sarla Behn moved to India, and is categorized in several other Indian FOOian categories. Similar case with Annie Besant. In other words, it looks like they were intentially categorized as being in Indian women categories. Mason (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- That works for the women, but there are several men in Category:Indian independence activists who look British, e.g. Reginald Reynolds and Allan Octavian Hume. TSventon (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why it's necessary to fully fix the entire parent category structure. The British people could be People from British India. Regardless, it was pretty clear that the category contents reflect Indian women, and are inconsistent with other women activists categories. Mason (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2024 (UTCC)
- I think the changes to Category:Women Korean independence activists and Category:Women Indian independence activists are unnecessary as Category:Women Indian independence activists contains women who worked for Indian Independence, just as Category:Women human rights activists contains women who work(ed) for human rights. I am questioning not opposing as in practice most Indian/Korean independence activists were Indian/Korean, so the change in scope is minor. TSventon (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Personally, I'd like to eventually make it easier to distinguish between nationality and causes. Category:Women human rights activists is much more clearly about Human rights activists who are women, compared to how we often name Category:Independence activists which could go either way as this conversation has revealed. Mason (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it is fairly clear that Category:Indian independence activists relates to the Indian independence movement, which is the main article for the category. The proposed change makes that less clear, so the current wording is better. We don't have Category:British independence activists or a British independence movement article. There is some confusion at Category:Indian independence activists by state or union territory, for example Category:Indian independence activists from Nagaland and Category:Kashmiri independence activists contain activists for the independence of Nagaland and Kashmir from India. TSventon (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- If it were clear, this would not be an ongoing discussion, and there would not be an entire category tree dedicated to Category:Independence activists by nationality. Mason (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it is fairly clear that Category:Indian independence activists relates to the Indian independence movement, which is the main article for the category. The proposed change makes that less clear, so the current wording is better. We don't have Category:British independence activists or a British independence movement article. There is some confusion at Category:Indian independence activists by state or union territory, for example Category:Indian independence activists from Nagaland and Category:Kashmiri independence activists contain activists for the independence of Nagaland and Kashmir from India. TSventon (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why it's necessary to fully fix the entire parent category structure. The British people could be People from British India. Regardless, it was pretty clear that the category contents reflect Indian women, and are inconsistent with other women activists categories. Mason (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2024 (UTCC)
- That works for the women, but there are several men in Category:Indian independence activists who look British, e.g. Reginald Reynolds and Allan Octavian Hume. TSventon (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, it looks like Sarla Behn moved to India, and is categorized in several other Indian FOOian categories. Similar case with Annie Besant. In other words, it looks like they were intentially categorized as being in Indian women categories. Mason (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm happy to remove the non-indian folks, and put them into a new category of Activists for Indian independence. Mason (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Smasongarrison I would question this. Current name includes non-Indian women who were Indian independence activists, such as Sarla Behn and Annie Besant. TSventon (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:People involved in race and intelligence controversies to Category:People associated with race and intelligence controversies – C2E: I'm cleaning up the parent category to make it more navigable. I realized that this name implies that each person is directly involved in the controversy (or advocating that there are genetic between group differences). A subset of folks in here do work that effectively argues the opposite (or folks who are actively involved in demonstrating that the differences aren't caused by race). Mason (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Smasongarrison: "involved in" sounds stronger than "associated with", doesn’t it? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. That is exactly why I want to soften the language. Mason (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Smasongarrison: then that's the very reason I am opposing it, per WP:DEFINING, WP:OCASSOC. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- There are people who are still defined by their research in race and intelligence, even if they aren't actively involved in such controversy. The current version implies that they are advocating for the hypothesis in favor, the rename does not imply that they are in favor of the hypothesis. If you want to purge the category, fine, but I think that your opposition in misguided, given how potentially controversial the label is. Mason (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Researchers of the topic are a completely different sort of people in this context, they should never be mingled with people who are actually involved in these controversies. If enough researchers articles exist they should have their own category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- There are people who are still defined by their research in race and intelligence, even if they aren't actively involved in such controversy. The current version implies that they are advocating for the hypothesis in favor, the rename does not imply that they are in favor of the hypothesis. If you want to purge the category, fine, but I think that your opposition in misguided, given how potentially controversial the label is. Mason (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Smasongarrison: then that's the very reason I am opposing it, per WP:DEFINING, WP:OCASSOC. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. That is exactly why I want to soften the language. Mason (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Smasongarrison: "involved in" sounds stronger than "associated with", doesn’t it? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Wikipedia formatting and function templates by subject area to Category:Wikipedia utility templates by subject area – C2C after Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_28#Category:Wikipedia_formatting_and_function_templates – Fayenatic London 19:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Association football formatting and function templates to Category:Association football utility templates
- Category:Astronomy formatting and function templates to Category:Astronomy utility templates
- Category:Solar System formatting and function templates to Category:Astronomy utility templates
- Category:Minor planet formatting and function templates to Category:Minor planet utility templates
- Category:Automotive formatting and function templates to Category:Automotive utility templates
- Category:Formula E formatting and function templates to Category:Formula E utility templates
- Category:Formula One formatting and function templates to Category:Formula One utility templates
- Category:Chemistry formatting and function templates to Category:Chemistry utility templates
- Category:Currency formatting and function templates to Category:Currency utility templates
- Category:Economics formatting and function templates to Category:Economics utility templates
- Category:Transport formatting and function templates to Category:Transport utility templates
- Category:Norway rail transport formatting and function templates to Category:Norway rail transport utility templates
- Category:Virginia state highway formatting and function templates to Category:Virginia state highway utility templates
- I propose Category:Wikipedia formatting and function templates by subject area to Category:Wikipedia utility templates by topic, similar to subcategories of Wikipedia templates by task and topic. Side note: I really don't understand the meaning of the word "utility" here. Surely, all created templates are meant to have some utility? It sounds so generic, I wouldn't mind upmerging the whole tree of Wikipedia utility templates. —andrybak (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Andrybak. Looked at a few at the minor planet category. Any link template should be under a sub-category of Category:Link templates. "Utility" is so generic that it is unhelpful, as is the previous "function templates". Probably best to check the contents of each category and see if they are all of a same type, find out which parent correctly fit that type and rename to match. Gonnym (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Canterbury Region – C2D: Per move discussion from March of 2022 and to match the main article at Canterbury Region. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Question: Should all of these be at "in the Canterbury Region", not "in Canterbury Region"? The title of Geology of the Canterbury Region and running text in Canterbury Region suggest they might. This contrasts somewhat with the usage at Southland Region (see below), but is the same style (whichever one it is) preferable for both regions? Ham II (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- "the Canterbury Region", similar to "the West Coast Region" and "the Marlborough Region", which have just been done. Nurg (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Bays of Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Bays of Canterbury Region
- Category:Bridges in Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Bridges in Canterbury Region
- Category:Buildings and structures in Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Buildings and structures in Canterbury Region
- Category:Canterbury, New Zealand geography stubs to Category:Canterbury Region geography stubs
- Category:Canterbury, New Zealand river stubs to Category:Canterbury Region river stubs
- Category:Canyons and gorges of Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Canyons and gorges of Canterbury Region
- Category:Cricketers from Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Cricketers from Canterbury Region
- Category:Education in Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Education in Canterbury Region
- Category:Environment of Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Environment of Canterbury Region
- Category:Geography of Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Geography of Canterbury Region
- Category:Headlands of Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Headlands of Canterbury Region
- Category:Heritage New Zealand Category 1 historic places in Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Heritage New Zealand Category 1 historic places in Canterbury Region
- Category:Heritage New Zealand Category 2 historic places in Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Heritage New Zealand Category 2 historic places in Canterbury Region
- Category:Hiking and tramping tracks in Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Hiking and tramping tracks in Canterbury Region
- Category:History of Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:History of Canterbury Region
- Category:Islands of Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Islands of Canterbury Region
- Category:Lagoons of Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Lagoons of Canterbury Region
- Category:Lakes of Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Lakes of Canterbury Region
- Category:Landforms of Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Landforms of Canterbury Region
- Category:Mayors of places in Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Mayors of places in Canterbury Region
- Category:Military personnel from Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Military personnel from Canterbury Region
- Category:Mountain ranges of Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Mountain ranges of Canterbury Region
- Category:Mountains of Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Mountains of Canterbury Region
- Category:Museums in Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Museums in Canterbury Region
- Category:Parks in Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Parks in Canterbury Region
- Category:People educated by school in Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:People educated by school in Canterbury Region
- Category:People from Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:People from Canterbury Region
- Category:Politics of Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Politics of Canterbury Region
- Category:Populated places in Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Populated places in Canterbury Region
- Category:Protected areas of Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Protected areas of Canterbury Region
- Category:Rail transport in Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Rail transport in Canterbury Region
- Category:Religious buildings and structures in Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Religious buildings and structures in Canterbury Region
- Category:Rivers of Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Rivers of Canterbury Region
- Category:Rock formations of Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Rock formations of Canterbury Region
- Category:Rugby league in Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Rugby league in Canterbury Region
- Category:Rugby league players from Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Rugby league players from Canterbury Region
- Category:Rugby league players in Canterbury, New Zealand by club to Category:Rugby league players in Canterbury Region by club
- Category:Rugby union players from Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Rugby union players from Canterbury Region
- Category:Schools in Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Schools in Canterbury Region
- Category:Secondary schools in Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Secondary schools in Canterbury Region
- Category:Ski areas and resorts in Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Canterbury Region
- Category:Sport in Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Sport in Canterbury Region
- Category:Sports venues in Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Sports venues in Canterbury Region
- Category:Sportspeople from Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Sportspeople from Canterbury Region
- Category:Tourist attractions in Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Tourist attractions in Canterbury Region
- Category:Transport buildings and structures in Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Transport buildings and structures in Canterbury Region
- Category:Transport in Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Transport in Canterbury Region
- Category:Volcanoes of Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Volcanoes of Canterbury Region
- Category:Wetlands of Canterbury, New Zealand to Category:Wetlands of Canterbury Region
- Question: Should all of these be at "in the Canterbury Region", not "in Canterbury Region"? The title of Geology of the Canterbury Region and running text in Canterbury Region suggest they might. This contrasts somewhat with the usage at Southland Region (see below), but is the same style (whichever one it is) preferable for both regions? Ham II (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Southland, New Zealand to Category:Southland Region – C2D: Per move discussion from March of 2022 and to match the main article at Southland Region. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Question: Should these be at "in the Southland Region" or "in Southland Region"? Southland Region has one piece of running text, "
A map showing population density in the Southland Region at the 2006 census.
", which suggests the former, and three pieces of running text which suggest the latter: "Southland Region and the Southland Regional Council were created in 1989
", "Southland Region covers 31,218.27 km2
" and "Southland Region had a population of 97,467 at the 2018 New Zealand census
". This contrasts somewhat with the usage at the article Canterbury Region (see above), but is the same style (whichever one it is) preferable for both regions? Ham II (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)- "the Southland Region", similar to "the West Coast Region" and "the Marlborough Region", which have just been done, and similar to all the other NZ regions, as can be seen by navigating down the tree at Category:Regions of New Zealand. Nurg (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Bays of Southland, New Zealand to Category:Bays of Southland Region
- Category:Bridges in Southland, New Zealand to Category:Bridges in Southland Region
- Category:Buildings and structures in Southland, New Zealand to Category:Buildings and structures in Southland Region
- Category:Education in Southland, New Zealand to Category:Education in Southland Region
- Category:Geography of Southland, New Zealand to Category:Geography of Southland Region
- Category:Ghost towns in Southland, New Zealand to Category:Ghost towns in Southland Region
- Category:Headlands of Southland, New Zealand to Category:Headlands of Southland Region
- Category:Heritage New Zealand Category 1 historic places in Southland, New Zealand to Category:Heritage New Zealand Category 1 historic places in Southland Region
- Category:Hiking and tramping tracks in Southland, New Zealand to Category:Hiking and tramping tracks in Southland Region
- Category:Hills of Southland, New Zealand to Category:Hills of Southland Region
- Category:History of Southland, New Zealand to Category:History of Southland Region
- Category:Islands of Southland, New Zealand to Category:Islands of Southland Region
- Category:Lakes of Southland, New Zealand to Category:Lakes of Southland Region
- Category:Landforms of Southland, New Zealand to Category:Landforms of Southland Region
- Category:Mayors of places in Southland, New Zealand to Category:Mayors of places in Southland Region
- Category:Military personnel from Southland, New Zealand to Category:Military personnel from Southland Region
- Category:Mountain ranges of Southland, New Zealand to Category:Mountain ranges of Southland Region
- Category:Mountains of Southland, New Zealand to Category:Mountains of Southland Region
- Category:Museums in Southland, New Zealand to Category:Museums in Southland Region
- Category:People educated by school in Southland, New Zealand to Category:People educated by school in Southland Region
- Category:People from Southland, New Zealand to Category:People from Southland Region
- Category:Politics of Southland, New Zealand to Category:Politics of Southland Region
- Category:Populated places in Southland, New Zealand to Category:Populated places in Southland Region
- Category:Protected areas of Southland, New Zealand to Category:Protected areas of Southland Region
- Category:Rail transport in Southland, New Zealand to Category:Rail transport in Southland Region
- Category:Rivers of Southland, New Zealand to Category:Rivers of Southland Region
- Category:Rugby league in Southland, New Zealand to Category:Rugby league in Southland Region
- Category:Rugby union players from Southland, New Zealand to Category:Rugby union players from Southland Region
- Category:Schools in Southland, New Zealand to Category:Schools in Southland Region
- Category:Secondary schools in Southland, New Zealand to Category:Secondary schools in Southland Region
- Category:Southland, New Zealand geography stubs to Category:Southland Region geography stubs
- Category:Southland, New Zealand river stubs to Category:Southland Region river stubs
- Category:Sport in Southland, New Zealand to Category:Sport in Southland Region
- Category:Sports venues in Southland, New Zealand to Category:Sports venues in Southland Region
- Category:Sportspeople from Southland, New Zealand to Category:Sportspeople from Southland Region
- Category:Tourist attractions in Southland, New Zealand to Category:Tourist attractions in Southland Region
- Category:Transport buildings and structures in Southland, New Zealand to Category:Transport buildings and structures in Southland Region
- Category:Transport in Southland, New Zealand to Category:Transport in Southland Region
- Category:Wetlands of Southland, New Zealand to Category:Wetlands of Southland Region
- Question: Should these be at "in the Southland Region" or "in Southland Region"? Southland Region has one piece of running text, "
- @Ymblanter: I haven't moved these batches to the opposed section because adding "the" seems a matter of C2C. Feel free to move them to Opposed if you think otherwise. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- English is not my mothertongue, and I do not feel comfortable to unilaterally decide whether it should be "the" in the names or not. If there is no obvious consensus may be we should go through the full CfD. Ymblanter (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to me that "the" should be inserted, C2C with other regions, per Ham II and Nurg. It would be helpful if user:Hey man im josh would confirm that he has no objection. – Fayenatic London 22:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- English is not my mothertongue, and I do not feel comfortable to unilaterally decide whether it should be "the" in the names or not. If there is no obvious consensus may be we should go through the full CfD. Ymblanter (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter: I haven't moved these batches to the opposed section because adding "the" seems a matter of C2C. Feel free to move them to Opposed if you think otherwise. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Opposed requests
[edit]- None currently
On hold pending other discussion
[edit]- Category:1924 establishments in Mozambique to Category:1924 establishments in Portuguese Mozambique – C2C with Category:1920s in Portuguese Mozambique, following parameter change by Marcocapelle.[1] The member pages are in Beira, Maputo and Nampula which were all under Portuguese control at the time. – Fayenatic London 12:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:1924 in Mozambique to Category:1924 in Portuguese Mozambique
- Support, just adding this because I was pinged. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:1924 in Mozambique to Category:1924 in Portuguese Mozambique
Moved to full discussion
[edit]- Category:Sacked Hindu temples in the Muslim period in the Indian subcontinent to Category:Hindu temples destroyed in the Muslim period in the Indian subcontinent – C2C. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- @LaundryPizza03: oppose, "sacked" was suggested in full CfD for a good reason, namely that in many cases the damage has been repaired ages ago, so "destroyed" is not applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @LaundryPizza03: Comment. Moving the verb to third position is a straightforward improvement in clarity. Changing the verb from "sacked" to "destroyed" requires consensus. Jruderman (talk) 05:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Family of Boris Johnson to Category:Boris Johnson family – C2B. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- It has been recently moved via speedy, may be we should go for a full discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter, oh I did that, incorrectly thinking it was an error or the wrong. But in fact the previous version was the correct form so was just undoing it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Moved to full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- It has been recently moved via speedy, may be we should go for a full discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Current discussions
[edit]July 22
[edit]NEW NOMINATIONS
[edit]Category:Central Greece
[edit]- Propose splitting Category:Central Greece to Category:Central Greece (region) and Category:Central Greece (geographic region)
- Proposed contents of Category:Central Greece (region) – modern times (after 1987)
- Main article: Central Greece (region)
- Other articles: Template:Central Greece, Decentralized Administration of Thessaly and Central Greece
- Child categories: Category:Buildings and structures in Central Greece, Category:Culture in Central Greece (but re-parent Category:Archaeological discoveries in Central Greece to Category:Central Greece (geographic region)), Category:Geography of Central Greece, Category:Organizations based in Central Greece, Category:People from Central Greece, Category:Sport in Central Greece, Category:Tourist attractions in Central Greece, Category:Transport in Central Greece, Category:Central Greece geography stubs.
- Proposed contents of Category:Central Greece (region) – modern times (after 1987)
- Proposed contents of Category:Central Greece (geographic region) – history (before 1987)
- Main article: Central Greece (geographic region)
- Other articles: Attica, Phocis and Locris Prefecture.
- Child categories: Category:History of Central Greece, Category:Archaeological discoveries in Central Greece.
- Proposed contents of Category:Central Greece (geographic region) – history (before 1987)
- Propose purging Attica (region).
- Nominator's rationale: WP:SHAREDNAME. Central Greece (region) is the modern administrative region (Περιφέρεια perifereia) established in 1987. Central Greece (geographic region) is the historic geographical region (γεωγραφικό διαμέρισμα geografiko diamerisma) abolished in 1987. I have WP:BOLDly renamed Central Greece (an WP:UNSOURCED article) to Central Greece (geographic region), and turned Central Greece into a DP, hoping to clarify the situation. Splitting the category is the next logical step. Child categories can be renamed if so desired per WP:C2C once this split is approved. NLeeuw (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- This sounds like a too complex solution for a not so complex problem. I think we should just remove Attica from Category:History of Central Greece and every of its subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- That is too simplistic a solution for a complex problem. I'll illustrate the problem with maps:
-
Central Greece (region), after 1987
-
Central Greece (geographic region), before 1987
-
Geographic regions of Greece, before 1987
- If we want this category to be only about the modern administrative region (perifereia) of Central Greece, it's not just about removing Attica, it is also removing parts of Western Greece, removing the northeast coast of the Pelopponese (or not?), removing Kythira (or not?), but adding Skyros (or not?), and so on. NLeeuw (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough to remove those too. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- If we want this category to be only about the modern administrative region (perifereia) of Central Greece, it's not just about removing Attica, it is also removing parts of Western Greece, removing the northeast coast of the Pelopponese (or not?), removing Kythira (or not?), but adding Skyros (or not?), and so on. NLeeuw (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I nominated grandchild Category:Battles in Central Greece for renaming to Category:Military history of Central Greece. Under my current splitting proposal, that renaming proposal remains unaffected. But if we want to avoid the Lorraine problem, as in previous "Battles in" discussions, it might have to be renamed to Category:Military history of Central Greece (region) later on. My splitting proposal was designed mostly to solve that potential Lorraine problem ahead of time, but I guess it doesn't really matter, as we can always C2C it later. NLeeuw (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)- Marcocapelle, Nederlandse Leeuw, do you have a compromise here? — Qwerfjkltalk 19:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure Marcocapelle understood what I was proposing, and why. I was hoping for others to weigh in, but nobody else seems to care. NLeeuw (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Nederlandse Leeuw: the proposal is to create a category for the former definition of Central Greece, next to a category of the current definition of Central Greece. I think that this is just confusing. We do not usually split geography categories by former borders. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Unless the category for the former definition of Central Greece contains purely historical contents, to which the modern definition would not apply. NLeeuw (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Nederlandse Leeuw: the proposal is to create a category for the former definition of Central Greece, next to a category of the current definition of Central Greece. I think that this is just confusing. We do not usually split geography categories by former borders. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure Marcocapelle understood what I was proposing, and why. I was hoping for others to weigh in, but nobody else seems to care. NLeeuw (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clear old CfD log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Fictional robbers
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Fictional robbers to Category:Fictional thieves
- Propose merging Category:Fictional female robbers to Category:Fictional female thieves
- Nominator's rationale: There is very little to distinguish thieves from robbers, both of which have the exact same connotation with one being a subgroup of the other. Given the huge overlap, given that many fictional thieves also engage in robbery, this newly created category should be merged back as overcategorization. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Merge and redirect. I have added the subcat for females to this nomination, as it would made no sense to keep that without this parent. – Fayenatic London 12:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: People should also add their opinion on Category:Fictional pirates and Category:Fictional female pirates being a subcategory. It formerly wasn't, because... duh, but AHI added the parent category. Needless to say, pirates are not always thieves and any pirates who are also thieves should be added to both categories. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- The same applies to Category:Pirates. The article Piracy starts "Piracy is an act of robbery…" so I think the sub-catting must continue. – Fayenatic London 17:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: fictional pirates may be heroes rather than thieves. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Real life pirates likewise may be viewed as heroes and thieves by different people. Francis Drake is a hero to English kids but un pirata to Spaniards. But if they take property from others without consent, it's correct to place them within the hierarchy of Theft. – Fayenatic London 08:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: fictional pirates may be heroes rather than thieves. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- The same applies to Category:Pirates. The article Piracy starts "Piracy is an act of robbery…" so I think the sub-catting must continue. – Fayenatic London 17:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: People should also add their opinion on Category:Fictional pirates and Category:Fictional female pirates being a subcategory. It formerly wasn't, because... duh, but AHI added the parent category. Needless to say, pirates are not always thieves and any pirates who are also thieves should be added to both categories. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment, inclusion of bandits may be even more questionable than pirates. I do not have an opinion about the merge itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Banditry is within Robbery – both conceptually and by current categorisation – so I don't understand the objections here. – Fayenatic London 08:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: I think that banditry should be above robbery and murder. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree, and don't understand why you would think that. Most murderers are not bandits. – Fayenatic London 07:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: I think that banditry should be above robbery and murder. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Banditry is within Robbery – both conceptually and by current categorisation – so I don't understand the objections here. – Fayenatic London 08:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep but containerize, that will take away the overlap too, while the tree in fiction still mirrors the real life tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would not object to keeping it, but see no point in containerising it. The mugger Joe Chill has been added, which is helpful, as he is plainly a robber. – Fayenatic London 07:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Marco, but disagree about containerizing. AHI-3000 (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Scottish noblewomen
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Scottish noblewomen to Category:Scottish women by rank
- Nominator's rationale: I think we should rename and purge this category to mirror British women by rank and English women by rank Mason (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- This would be inconsistent with parent Category:Scottish nobility. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- But there's no other noblewomen categories Mason (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be curious to know why not. If existing I probably wouldn't consider nominating Category:Noblewomen for renaming or merging. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- But there's no other noblewomen categories Mason (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Artists from New Spain
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Non of the people in here are described as being New Spanish. I think that this kind of category could work as a parent/container category, but I don't see how it's helpful to bundle such disparate people together Mason (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- They do not seem very disparate, most of them lived not too far from Mexico City, the capital of New Spain. And even if they would live far away from the capital, is that a problem? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- New Spain is such a broad area over a huge period of time. Wouldn't it make more sense to have this as a parent category for Category:16th-century Mexican artists etc instead? Mason (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Russia is a big country too and it has existed for a long time too. Is that a problem? Of course I wouldn't object to subcategories based on administrative subdivisions, but I am not sure if Mexico was one. At least there were the Captaincy General of Guatemala, the Captaincy General of Yucatán, and the three big Caribbean islands each were their own captaincy general. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- New Spain is such a broad area over a huge period of time. Wouldn't it make more sense to have this as a parent category for Category:16th-century Mexican artists etc instead? Mason (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- They do not seem very disparate, most of them lived not too far from Mexico City, the capital of New Spain. And even if they would live far away from the capital, is that a problem? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:American high school teachers
[edit]- Propose merging Category:American high school teachers to Category:American schoolteachers
- Nominator's rationale: Do we really need to diffuse by level of educator? Do we have middle school, elementary school? This just doesn't need to be very defining Mason (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- If merged then disperse in the tree of Category:American schoolteachers by state or territory. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep education varies significantly depending on the level one teaches. Secondary education is different from primary education. Moreover, this is a subcategory Category:Secondary education in the United States, the existence of which demonstrates the differences.--User:Namiba 12:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Land agents
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Newly created category containing 1 eponymous article and 1 "land agent" Gjs238 (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Los Angeles Knight Riders
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Newly created category containing 1 article. Gjs238 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per C2F. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: There's no article attached in that category Wowlastic10 (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per C2F. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Comparative theology
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Newly created category containing 1 article. Gjs238 (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:1805 in Germany
[edit]- Propose merging Category:1805 in Germany to Category:1805 in the Holy Roman Empire
- Propose merging Category:1805 establishments in Germany to Category:1805 establishments in the Holy Roman Empire
- Nominator's rationale: merge similar to all years up to 1804. The Holy Roman Empire was disestablished in 1806. It is a bit confusing because the Austrian Empire was established two years earlier, in 1804. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:1805 establishments in Germany.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Pages using new version of Template EstcatCountry
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: No longer necessary: all pages use the new version of {{EstcatCountry}}. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Category:Pages using old version of Template EstcatCountry was speedy deleted per G8 in September 2023. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
NCAA University and College Divisions, 1956 to 1961
[edit]- Propose merging Category:1956 NCAA University Division football season to Category:1956 college football season
- Propose merging Category:1957 NCAA University Division football season to Category:1957 college football season
- Propose merging Category:1958 NCAA University Division football season to Category:1958 college football season
- Propose merging Category:1959 NCAA University Division football season to Category:1959 college football season
- Propose merging Category:1960 NCAA University Division football season to Category:1960 college football season
- Propose merging Category:1961 NCAA University Division football season to Category:1961 college football season
- Propose merging Category:1956 NCAA College Division football season to Category:1956 college football season
- Propose merging Category:1957 NCAA College Division football season to Category:1957 college football season
- Propose merging Category:1958 NCAA College Division football season to Category:1958 college football season
- Propose merging Category:1959 NCAA College Division football season to Category:1959 college football season
- Propose merging Category:1960 NCAA College Division football season to Category:1960 college football season
- Propose merging Category:1961 NCAA College Division football season to Category:1961 college football season
- Propose merging Category:1956 NCAA University Division independents football season to Category:1956 college football season
- Propose merging Category:1957 NCAA University Division independents football season to Category:1957 college football season
- Propose merging Category:1958 NCAA University Division independents football season to Category:1958 college football season
- Propose merging Category:1959 NCAA University Division independents football season to Category:1959 college football season
- Propose merging Category:1960 NCAA University Division independents football season to Category:1960 college football season
- Propose merging Category:1961 NCAA University Division independents football season to Category:1961 college football season
- Propose merging Category:1956 NCAA College Division independents football season to Category:1956 college football season
- Propose merging Category:1957 NCAA College Division independents football season to Category:1957 college football season
- Propose merging Category:1958 NCAA College Division independents football season to Category:1958 college football season
- Propose merging Category:1959 NCAA College Division independents football season to Category:1959 college football season
- Propose merging Category:1960 NCAA College Division independents football season to Category:1960 college football season
- Propose merging Category:1961 NCAA College Division independents football season to Category:1961 college football season
- Propose merging Category:1956 NCAA University Division football standings templates to Category:1956 college football standings templates
- Propose merging Category:1957 NCAA University Division football standings templates to Category:1957 college football standings templates
- Propose merging Category:1958 NCAA University Division football standings templates to Category:1958 college football standings templates
- Propose merging Category:1959 NCAA University Division football standings templates to Category:1959 college football standings templates
- Propose merging Category:1960 NCAA University Division football standings templates to Category:1960 college football standings templates
- Propose merging Category:1961 NCAA University Division football standings templates to Category:1961 college football standings templates
- Propose merging Category:1956 NCAA College Division football standings templates to Category:1956 college football standings templates
- Propose merging Category:1957 NCAA College Division football standings templates to Category:1957 college football standings templates
- Propose merging Category:1958 NCAA College Division football standings templates to Category:1958 college football standings templates
- Propose merging Category:1959 NCAA College Division football standings templates to Category:1959 college football standings templates
- Propose merging Category:1960 NCAA College Division football standings templates to Category:1960 college football standings templates
- Propose merging Category:1961 NCAA College Division football standings templates to Category:1961 college football standings templates
- Nominator's rationale: Per recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 27#1956 NCAA College Division football season, research determined that the NCAA University Division and NCAA College Division were not applied to football until 1962. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Duchy of Lucca year categories
[edit]- Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Duchy of Lucca (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Duchy of Lucca by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:1820s establishments in the Duchy of Lucca (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:1840s establishments in the Duchy of Lucca (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:1826 in the Duchy of Lucca (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:1846 in the Duchy of Lucca (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose merging Category:1826 establishments in the Duchy of Lucca (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1826 establishments in Italy
- Propose merging Category:1846 establishments in the Duchy of Lucca (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1846 establishments in Italy
- Nominator's rationale: Massive tree for two articles (Lucca railway station and Luccan lira) which is unhelpful for navigation. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. The Duchy of Lucca was a small Italian state that existed from 1815 to 1847. Both articles are in other appropriate establishment and Lucca-related subcategories than the ones included here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
July 21
[edit]Category:Lists of tennis commentators
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Only one article in the category, upmerge to the parent category. Let'srun (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
German Confederation
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:1815 in Germany to Category:1815 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1816 in Germany to Category:1816 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1817 in Germany to Category:1817 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1818 in Germany to Category:1818 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1819 in Germany to Category:1819 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1820 in Germany to Category:1820 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1821 in Germany to Category:1821 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1822 in Germany to Category:1822 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1823 in Germany to Category:1823 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1824 in Germany to Category:1824 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1825 in Germany to Category:1825 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1826 in Germany to Category:1826 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1827 in Germany to Category:1827 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1828 in Germany to Category:1828 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1829 in Germany to Category:1829 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1830 in Germany to Category:1830 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1831 in Germany to Category:1831 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1832 in Germany to Category:1832 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1833 in Germany to Category:1833 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1834 in Germany to Category:1834 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1835 in Germany to Category:1835 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1836 in Germany to Category:1836 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1837 in Germany to Category:1837 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1838 in Germany to Category:1838 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1839 in Germany to Category:1839 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1840 in Germany to Category:1840 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1841 in Germany to Category:1841 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1842 in Germany to Category:1842 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1843 in Germany to Category:1843 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1844 in Germany to Category:1844 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1845 in Germany to Category:1845 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1846 in Germany to Category:1846 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1847 in Germany to Category:1847 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1848 in Germany to Category:1848 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1849 in Germany to Category:1849 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1850 in Germany to Category:1850 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1851 in Germany to Category:1851 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1852 in Germany to Category:1852 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1853 in Germany to Category:1853 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1854 in Germany to Category:1854 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1855 in Germany to Category:1855 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1856 in Germany to Category:1856 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1857 in Germany to Category:1857 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1858 in Germany to Category:1858 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1859 in Germany to Category:1859 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1860 in Germany to Category:1860 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1861 in Germany to Category:1861 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1862 in Germany to Category:1862 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1863 in Germany to Category:1863 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1864 in Germany to Category:1864 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1865 in Germany to Category:1865 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1866 in Germany to Category:1866 in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1820s in Germany to Category:1820s in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1830s in Germany to Category:1830s in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1840s in Germany to Category:1840s in the German Confederation
- Propose renaming Category:1850s in Germany to Category:1850s in the German Confederation
- Nominator's rationale: rename, there was no unified German country until 1871. The German Confederation (1815-1866) was a loose connection of independent states which also included Austria and Bohemia. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is follow-up on this earlier discussion, @PearlyGigs and Fayenatic london: pinging contributors to this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Rename all per above and 10 July discussion. Thanks for the ping, Marcocapelle. PearlyGigs (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Jewish American slave owners
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Jewish American slave owners to Category:American slave owners
- Nominator's rationale: merge per previous precedent here Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @Marcocapelle and @Smasongarrison from previous Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom as long as everyone is already in American Jew category. Mason (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Smasongarrison, there were a few which weren't but I've added them to the appropriate subcats of Category:American Jews. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Mason (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Smasongarrison, there were a few which weren't but I've added them to the appropriate subcats of Category:American Jews. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge as proposed. OCEGRS definitely applies here. PearlyGigs (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Jewish businesspeople
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: My speedy delete nomination was declined [2] (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_8) because there have been more recent mixed opinions of the intersection of being Jewish and several occupations (e.g., Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_14#Category:Jewish_merchants; Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_August_29#Category:Jewish_sportspeople; link:for a search of CFDS with the word Jewish, sorted by most recent);Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_12#Category:Jewish_British_slave_owners). I think that this category is problematic under WP:EGRS given that it is primarily based on a stereotype rather than a defining intersection. I recall that several business-related child categories have been deleted over the same concern. (I think that Jewish Bankers is an exception because of the historical context of banking in Europe being a non-Christian occupation because of usury) Mason (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Omnis Scientia, do you remember with business occupations were recently deleted? (My brain is telling me that you were in those conversations.)Mason (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Smasongarrison, no I wasn't but I would say this one should be deleted. A lot of Jewish businesspeople, historically speaking, so WP:EGRS applies. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! (Lol, my bad. I should clearly stop listening to my brain 🤣 for advice!) Mason (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Smasongarrison, no I wasn't but I would say this one should be deleted. A lot of Jewish businesspeople, historically speaking, so WP:EGRS applies. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Omnis Scientia, do you remember with business occupations were recently deleted? (My brain is telling me that you were in those conversations.)Mason (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Fire temples
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, 1 and 2 members respectively. Both were created by an editor who was subsequently blocked for WP:SOCKING. – Fayenatic London 14:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge, while WP:SMALLCAT is inactive as a guideline, this size of categories is obviously not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Korean women independence activists
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: I'm the creator of the category now on an IP. I originally created the cat under the target name, but it was speedy renamed a while back. I think the new name is either incorrect or confusingly worded. My original scope for the category was "Women who advocated for Korea's independence", not "Korean women who advocated for independence". There were several non-Korean women in the category at time of renaming. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Smasongarrison Courtesy tagging the prev renamer; please lmk if my interpretation of the new name is incorrect 104.232.119.107 (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose rename and Propose splitting to Korean women independence activists and Women activists for Korean independence. Clearly, the original name was confusing as it could be interpretated as either. Mason (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support this proposal. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose rename and Propose splitting to Korean women independence activists and Women activists for Korean independence. Clearly, the original name was confusing as it could be interpretated as either. Mason (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Smasongarrison Courtesy tagging the prev renamer; please lmk if my interpretation of the new name is incorrect 104.232.119.107 (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- For foreign activists, why would we make a distinction by gender? Marcocapelle (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Marco makes a good point. I am not familiar with the literature/history of women's activism on this issue. IP, can you point to literature on this subject? Either way, I think that "Activists for Korean independence" is clearer.Mason (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a newbie to category naming discussions, so not sure what kind of info is helpful. My quick hand count on South Korea's database of activists who received awards has 7 female non-Korean activists for Korean independence, although I know of maybe 1-2 others who haven't received awards and the number keeps expanding. For foreign activists for Korean independence of any gender, there are around 70-90ish commonly recognized I think. I'd prefer a single category for women activists for Korean independence of any nationality and not a split.
- Also, I'm not sure how much WP:COMMONNAME is typically weighed for categories. "Activists for Korean independence" is a less common wording than "Korean independence activist" [3], although it is possibly clearer. SK has an "independence activist of the month" program [4]. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Marco makes a good point. I am not familiar with the literature/history of women's activism on this issue. IP, can you point to literature on this subject? Either way, I think that "Activists for Korean independence" is clearer.Mason (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Battles of the Venetian–Genoese wars
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Battles of the Venetian–Genoese wars to Category:Venetian–Genoese wars
- Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose there are land battles for these conflicts as well, even if we don't yet have articles on them. E.g. the Siege of Acre (1257-1258) which launched the War of Saint Sabas, or the Siege of Alghero, or the Siege of Negroponte (1351), which was actually under the category propose for deletion until the nominator changed it to the inappropriate category on naval battles. Constantine ✍ 11:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom. We might even upmerge its subcategory Category:Naval battles of the Venetian–Genoese wars to Category:Venetian–Genoese wars as well. As this was a series of 4 separate wars rather than a single war, other parents such as Category:Battles by war arguably do not apply. NLeeuw (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment 3 out of 4 wars in this series already have their own subcategories, in which those same battles are also grouped:
- (first war) Category:War of Saint Sabas (1 C, 10 P)
- (second war) Category:War of Curzola (1 C, 3 P)
- (fourth war) (Category:War of Chioggia (1 C, 3 P)
- If we upmerge as proposed, then we'll have these battles grouped both in Category:Venetian–Genoese wars and in these 3 subcategories. Per WP:DIFFUSE, that's not very practical. Would it be worth upmerging those subcategories as well to avoid duplication? Aside from the battles and the main articles of the 1st, 2nd and 4th war, the only other contents are "People of the Xth war" subcategories, which we've also already covered in Category:People of the Venetian–Genoese wars. In short, there's a lot of duplication going on here. I'm not sure which solution I would find most elegant, but I'm considering this alt proposal:
- Category:Venetian–Genoese wars: contains main articles Venetian–Genoese wars, War of Saint Sabas, War of Curzola, War of the Straits, War of Chioggia, and all other articles we can't diffuse;
- Category:Battles of the Venetian–Genoese wars: contains all battles including land, naval and siege battles. No subcategories by war.
- Category:People of the Venetian–Genoese wars: contains all people of all four wars. No subcategories by war.
- Category:Venetian–Genoese wars: contains main articles Venetian–Genoese wars, War of Saint Sabas, War of Curzola, War of the Straits, War of Chioggia, and all other articles we can't diffuse;
- Might this work better than the proposal of nom? NLeeuw (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Happy to discuss further merges but shall we do that in a next nomination? We don't need a trainwreck. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- True. I guess we could always rename the naval battles subcategory to just battles if we decide to go with my alt proposal. Your proposal is an okay first step. NLeeuw (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Happy to discuss further merges but shall we do that in a next nomination? We don't need a trainwreck. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
History of Great Britain by period
[edit]- Propose deleting Category:Millennia in Great Britain
- Propose deleting Category:1st millennium BC in Great Britain
- Propose deleting Category:1st millennium in Great Britain
- Propose deleting Category:2nd millennium in Great Britain
- Propose deleting Category:3rd millennium in Great Britain
- Propose deleting Category:Centuries in Great Britain
- Propose deleting Category:1st century BC in Great Britain
- Propose deleting Category:1st century in Great Britain
- Propose deleting Category:2nd century in Great Britain
- Propose deleting Category:3rd century in Great Britain
- Propose deleting Category:4th century in Great Britain
- Propose deleting Category:5th century in Great Britain
- Propose deleting Category:6th century in Great Britain
- Propose deleting Category:7th century in Great Britain
- Propose deleting Category:8th century in Great Britain
- Propose deleting Category:9th century in Great Britain
- Propose deleting Category:10th century in Great Britain
- Propose deleting Category:11th century in Great Britain
- Propose deleting Category:12th century in Great Britain
- Propose deleting Category:13th century in Great Britain
- Propose deleting Category:14th century in Great Britain
- Propose deleting Category:15th century in Great Britain
- Propose deleting Category:16th century in Great Britain
- Propose deleting Category:17th century in Great Britain
- Propose deleting Category:18th century in Great Britain
- Propose deleting Category:19th century in Great Britain
- Propose deleting Category:20th century in Great Britain
- Propose deleting Category:21st century in Great Britain
- Nominator's rationale: delete, presumably the consequence of the deletion of Category:History of Great Britain in this earlier discussion is that its subcategories should also be deleted. I will follow up with decades and years later.
- @Omnis Scientia, Ham II, Johnbod, Nederlandse Leeuw, and PearlyGigs: pinging participants to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Well, let's see how this tree works. Category:Centuries in the United Kingdom has child cats Category:19th century in the United Kingdom, Category:20th century in the United Kingdom, and Category:21st century in the United Kingdom. That means I support a Just delete for Category:19th century in Great Britain, Category:20th century in Great Britain, and Category:21st century in Great Britain as being entirely duplicative. But for the 18th century and earlier, I'll take another look first. NLeeuw (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Kingdom of Great Britain can largely replace Category:18th century in Great Britain; perhaps a merge? Before 1707, most by century categories are just redundant layers for Xth century in England, Scotland and Wales. An exception to this pattern are things like Category:11th-century churches in the United Kingdom and Category:16th-century architecture in the United Kingdom. Strictly speaking, there was no "United Kingdom" before 1707, so there were no events happening in a UK that didn't exist yet. But that's not really what the category is saying: it is saying that churches and other buildings preserved to this day, and located in what today is the UK, date from the 16th and 11th century, respectively. In that case, these building subcategories only vaguely say anything about events in the 16th and 11th century (namely, construction in century X of building Y), and more about buildings in the UK today that stem from that time. I don't know. I'm not very found of these "establishments" categories anyway, as they all too frequently lead to these sort of anachronisms, and we may well wonder how WP:DEFINING it all is. Thoughts?
- More on topic, I think I am overall in favour of the proposal to delete these categories, unless merging is a better idea. NLeeuw (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, NLeeuw. Category:11th-century churches in the United Kingdom presents the sort of exception that epitomises the whole problem. First, it has only article, St Tugual's Chapel, which is on Herm in the Channel Islands. As far as I can tell, there is no other chronological category that could hold the article. Its other categories are Category:Herm and Category:Churches in the Channel Islands. I think we need to look at all articles in these GB/UK categories and decide if they need any kind of chronological categorisation. Personally, I think St Tugual's Chapel does not, because of its location. PearlyGigs (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- The Channel Islands aren't in the United Kingdom; they're Crown Dependencies. The chronological category for that chapel should be Category:11th-century churches, unless the date can be narrowed down to a decade or a year. Ham II (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Heh, I had forgotten about the crown dependency status. Makes the categorisation even more awkward and silly. NLeeuw (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- The Channel Islands aren't in the United Kingdom; they're Crown Dependencies. The chronological category for that chapel should be Category:11th-century churches, unless the date can be narrowed down to a decade or a year. Ham II (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Good points. Incidentally, its parent Category:11th-century architecture in the United Kingdom is a redundant layer, we might as well upmerge that right away. NLeeuw (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, NLeeuw. Category:11th-century churches in the United Kingdom presents the sort of exception that epitomises the whole problem. First, it has only article, St Tugual's Chapel, which is on Herm in the Channel Islands. As far as I can tell, there is no other chronological category that could hold the article. Its other categories are Category:Herm and Category:Churches in the Channel Islands. I think we need to look at all articles in these GB/UK categories and decide if they need any kind of chronological categorisation. Personally, I think St Tugual's Chapel does not, because of its location. PearlyGigs (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Leaning Keep as these categories cover the island of Great Britain, and are analogous to the Category:History of Ireland tree for the island (not the Republic) of Ireland. This avoids the anachronism of using "United Kingdom" for centuries before the 19th. (The categories for centuries in the UK start at Category:19th century in the United Kingdom.) Category:History of Great Britain by period has subcategories for ancient, medieval and early modern history; that is less anachronistic than if they were in the United Kingdom category tree.
- The problem with Category:History of Great Britain was the scope (the period 1707–1800, which made it indistinguishable from the scope of Category:Kingdom of Great Britain); in my opinion it should be recreated, with the scope being the history of the island. Ham II (talk) 10:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. I don't think re-creating the category will solve the underlying problem. The comparison with Category:History of Ireland is tempting, but I think the island of Ireland can much more easily be taken as a scope, as both the Republic and Northern Ireland are relatively recent phenomena that lead to few ambiguities for categorisation.
- Perhaps we should first delete the 19th, 20th and 21st-century categories and go from there? NLeeuw (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree we should immediately delete the 19th, 20th and 21st century ones which have no articles and only the requisite English, Scottish, and Welsh sub-categories. PearlyGigs (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- It would be rather artificial if a category tree for the island ended in the 18th century. Could there be a "United Kingdom > Great Britain > England, Scotland and Wales" (plus "Ireland (1801–1923)" and "Northern Ireland", as appropriate) structure for the 19th century onwards? Ham II (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree we should immediately delete the 19th, 20th and 21st century ones which have no articles and only the requisite English, Scottish, and Welsh sub-categories. PearlyGigs (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to delete all but I think we need to exercise caution by ensuring that all articles are satisfactorily categorised first. For example, Category:12th century in Great Britain has just one entry, Historia Regum Britanniae. That is a famous manuscript with a wide range of categories but we must ask if it needs one relating to its 12th-century British authorship. It is essentially an English work, despite its title, so should it go into just the Category:12th century in England tree, or also into those of Category:12th century in Scotland and Category:12th century in Wales? PearlyGigs (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to say only Category:12th century in England, as place of production. I agree with you. NLeeuw (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Essentially English?! See Historia Regum Britanniae § Sources – the only English one there is Bede; all the rest are Welsh or, in Gildas's case, a Celtic Briton more generally. The place of production is traditionally, but spuriously said to be at "Geoffrey's Window" in Monmouth Priory, Wales. Ham II (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I missed that. Reading the "Contents" section of the article, the summaries of the twelve books seem focused on events in what became England, both Romano-British and Anglo-Saxon. Scotland and Wales seem to be other places as in "The Britons (in England) are immediately besieged by attacks from Picts, Scots and Danes"; and "The remaining Britons are driven into Wales". I agree with adding it to Category:12th century in Wales but I think we can exclude Scotland.
- Actually, this does underline the need for caution when handling articles in GB/UK categories. Thanks, Ham II. PearlyGigs (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wait, the contents of the Historia should be irrelevant to categorising its place and time of production. Even if it had 23 entire chapters on Karakalpakstan in the 7th century, but was written in High Wycombe in the 12th century, it still went only into the Category:12th century in England, not Category:12th century in Uzbekistan (nor Category:7th century in Uzbekistan). NLeeuw (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The island of Great Britain has a distinct history, and we should be able to populate these categories. I suggest recreating Category:History of Great Britain. Dimadick (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Cathedrals in Baku
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Cathedrals in Baku to Category:Cathedrals in Azerbaijan and Category:Churches in Baku
- Nominator's rationale: merge, Category:Cathedrals in Azerbaijan is otherwise nearly empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Armenian Catholic churches
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Armenian Catholic churches by country (6 C) to Category:Armenian Catholic churches
- Propose merging Category:Armenian Catholic churches in Lebanon (2 P) to Category:Armenian Catholic churches and Category:Eastern Catholic church buildings in Lebanon and Category:Armenian churches in Lebanon and Category:Armenian Catholic Church in Lebanon
- Propose merging Category:Armenian Catholic churches in Romania (2 P) to Category:Armenian Catholic churches and Category:Eastern Catholic church buildings in Romania and Category:Armenian churches in Romania
- Propose merging Category:Armenian Catholic churches in Syria (2 P) to Category:Armenian Catholic churches and Category:Eastern Catholic church buildings in Syria and Category:Armenian churches in Syria
- Propose merging Category:Armenian Catholic churches in Turkey (2 C) to Category:Armenian Catholic churches and Category:Eastern Catholic church buildings in Turkey and Category:Armenian churches in Turkey and Category:Armenian Catholic Church in Turkey
- Propose merging Category:Armenian Catholic church buildings in Israel (1 P) to Category:Armenian churches in Israel (the article is already in Armenian Catholic cathedrals categories)
- Propose merging Category:Armenian Catholic church buildings in the State of Palestine (1 P) to Category:Armenian churches in the State of Palestine (the article is already in Armenian Catholic cathedrals categories)
- Nominator's rationale: merge, mostly just one or two articles per category, merging them facilitates navigating to more church articles more easily. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Oriental Orthodox monasteries in Azerbaijan
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary layer. Contains Armenian Apostolic sub-cat, and 1 page Yerits Mankants Monastery which says it was affiliated with Armenian Apostolic Church. Move page into subcat and upmerge. The other parent Category:Oriental Orthodox monasteries by country already holds the subcat via Category:Armenian Apostolic monasteries by country, so a dual merge is not needed. – Fayenatic London 08:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. I have already moved the article to the subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
July 20
[edit]Pre-statehood Colorado categories
[edit]- Propose merging Category:1874 Colorado elections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1874 in Colorado Territory
- Propose redirecting Category:1874 in Colorado (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1874 in Colorado Territory and tagging as {{R from category navigation}}
- Nominator's rationale: If kept, rename to Foo in Colorado Territory because Colorado did not become a state until 1876. However, a single-redirect category is not helpful for navigation. Merge to Category:1874 in Colorado Territory, and redirect Category:1874 in Colorado to Category:1874 in Colorado Territory as a {{R from category navigation}}. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 20:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Homosexual concentration camp survivors
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: I think we should rename this category to use the more inclusive and commonly used term of LGBT. The rename would also be more consistent with the other Nazi era category (Category:LGBT people in the Nazi Party) Mason (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Rename for consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Missouri elections before Missouri was a state
[edit]- Propose merging Category:1812 Missouri elections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1812 in Missouri Territory
- Propose merging Category:1814 Missouri elections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1814 in Missouri Territory
- Propose merging Category:1816 Missouri elections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1816 in Missouri Territory
- Propose merging Category:1817 Missouri elections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1817 in Missouri Territory
- Propose merging Category:1819 Missouri elections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1819 in Missouri Territory
- Propose deleting Category:1810s in Missouri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:1810s Missouri elections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: If kept, rename all to Foo in Missouri Territory because Missouri was not a state yet. However, a tree entirely composed of single-redirect categories is not helpful for navigation, and should be merged to the respective "[Year] in Missouri Territory" categories. (Category:1814 Missouri elections has two redirects, but the principle stands.) Delete two other categories which will become empty once all of their children categories are merged. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 20:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Washington (state) categories
[edit]- Propose merging Category:1860 Washington (state) elections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1860 in Washington Territory
- Propose merging Category:1870 Washington (state) elections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1870 in Washington Territory
- Propose deleting Category:1870s Washington (state) elections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:1870s in Washington (state) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:1860s Washington (state) elections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:1860s in Washington (state) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:1860 in Washington (state) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:1870 in Washington (state) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: First, Washington (state) did not become a state until 1889, so these categories are redundant to the corresponding Washington Territory. However, this entire mini-tree is just to categorize two redirects, so we only need to move them the appropriate "[Year] in Washington Territory" categories and delete the tree. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 19:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Parks and lakes in Jakarta
[edit]- Propose splitting Category:Parks and lakes in Jakarta to Category:Parks in Jakarta and Category:Lakes of Jakarta
- Nominator's rationale: Badly-named category that crosses two different types of things. No other category for either parks or lakes anywhere else in the world merges the two things into one shared category, and there's no reason why Jakarta's parks and lakes would have a uniquely Jakarta-specific need for different handling from everywhere else. In fact, this was originally at just "parks", and then got moved to this divergent name several years ago without any particular explanation given as to why such a thing would have been needed. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Split per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Missouri Territory
[edit]- Propose merging Category:1812 in Missouri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1812 in Missouri Territory
- Propose merging Category:1814 in Missouri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1814 in Missouri Territory
- Propose merging Category:1816 in Missouri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1816 in Missouri Territory
- Propose merging Category:1817 in Missouri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1817 in Missouri Territory
- Propose merging Category:1819 in Missouri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:1819 in Missouri Territory
- Nominator's rationale: Missouri did not exist until 1821; beforehand, it was the Missouri Territory. Merge to reflect this, and keep redirects as
{{R from template-generated category}}s{{R from category navigation}}. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 14:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC) (corrected rcat at 20:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC))
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:LGBT men artists
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:LGBT men artists to Category:LGBT male artists
- Nominator's rationale: Moving to [full]. Norm is "Male artists". For the record, the speedy rename was supported by the category creator. @MikutoH and Marcocapelle: discussants. Mason (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per LGBT men, Transgender men and their eponymous categories. Calling transgender men "male" could be slightly awkward. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: then all these categories need renaming. --MikutoH talk! 22:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Why Category:Male artists and Category:Women artists but not Category:Men artists or Category:Female artists? Is it because of grammar or something else? --MikutoH talk! 23:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Princes in Germany
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Princes in Germany to Category:Princes in the German Empire
- Nominator's rationale: rename for clarification that it is not about people after World War I, and to align with Category:People from the German Empire. Also check entries manually: if they do not belong here, they are likely to belong in Category:Princes of the Holy Roman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support rename. ETA: Also support purge. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle, shouldn't there be one for the German Confederation era between the Holy Roman Empire and German Empire? Just a thought. I know there was a brief North German Confederation but that was essentially a brief version of what became the united German Empire. The main big one was between the two empires was the German Confederation. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Omnis Scientia: no principalities of the German Confederation disappeared when the German Empire was established so that is redundant. The reverse is more likely: principalities may have existed both in the Holy Roman Empire and in the German Empire. But that is okay, then the principalities just stay in two categories as they already do now. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ah alright. Understood. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Omnis Scientia: no principalities of the German Confederation disappeared when the German Empire was established so that is redundant. The reverse is more likely: principalities may have existed both in the Holy Roman Empire and in the German Empire. But that is okay, then the principalities just stay in two categories as they already do now. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle, shouldn't there be one for the German Confederation era between the Holy Roman Empire and German Empire? Just a thought. I know there was a brief North German Confederation but that was essentially a brief version of what became the united German Empire. The main big one was between the two empires was the German Confederation. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom SFBB (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support rename. ETA: Also support purge. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Dutch princes
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Dutch princes to Category:Princes of the Netherlands
- Nominator's rationale: this previous discussion was about Fooian princes or princes of Foo, but we certainly do not need them both. Purge entries that aren't about princes in the Netherlands and merge the two categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Omnis Scientia, SFBB, and Hey man im josh: pinging contributors to previous discussion. See also discussion right above this one. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support rename. ETA: also support purge. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom SFBB (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Pig breeds originating from Indigenous Americans
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: merge, one-article categories are not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Breeds originating from Indigenous Americans
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: upmerge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. I also think the current category name is confusing/hard to parse. Mason (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Multiple citizenship
[edit]- Option A: rename Category:Multiple citizenship to Category:Multiple nationality.
- OR: option B: rename Category:People with multiple nationality to Category:People with multiple citizenship.
- Rationale: consistency. Until other arguments weigh in, option B is the preferred option per article title Multiple citizenship. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Philippine Sports Commission
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Unneeded eponymous category that contains nothing apart from the main article. Paul_012 (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Update: In light of the population of the category since the nomination, I'm willing to withdraw my nomination (though it should continue as there has also been another delete !vote). --Paul_012 (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose At the time of nominate, indeed the category contained only the eponymous article. I have since added applicable entries to the category. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Lean delete, I can't think of any other example of buildings and structures categorized by who maintains them. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Pyramids and bipyramids
[edit]- Propose splitting Category:Pyramids and bipyramids to Category:Pyramids (geometry) and Category:Bipyramids
- Nominator's rationale: These are two different classes of shapes that shouldn't be lumped together. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Split per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Tamil priests
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Tamil priests to Category:Tamil clergy
- Nominator's rationale: I think we should broaden the category to all clergy rather than the narrower priests. (I am not opposed to upmerging for now, given that this category has only one person in it) Mason (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Tamil people per WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Equally fine with me. Mason (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
AFD topic-sorting subcategories
[edit]- Propose deleting Category:AfD debates (Biographical) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:AfD debates (Fiction and the arts) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:AfD debates (Games or sports) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:AfD debates (Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:AfD debates (Media and music) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:AfD debates (Places and transportation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:AfD debates (Society topics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:AfD debates (Science and technology) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:AfD debates (Web or Internet) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: I originally brought this up here and nobody seemed to have any objection to moving forward or any reason why these are still useful, so here we are.
- These categories are redundant to deletion sorting, which provides much more fine-grained sorting and is built in to scripts such as Twinkle. Their utility was clear in the past before deletion sorting became both commonplace and simple to do, but now they are just an unneeded extra step in the process. It is my guess that the only reason they are still in use is that these same tools require it as part of the nomination process. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete There is no archive for closed discussions in these categories. They also overlap in scope, and their format does not support the overlap, unlike delsort. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment It is my understanding that any given deletion discussion may appear on more than one category page. If this is correct, then the overlap makes topics relevant to one's interest and expertise easier to find. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Unsure as I actually use both the categories and WP:DELSORT, and they are not fully redundant. E.g. WP:DELSORT/FICT lists 9 entries, while Category:AfD debates (Fiction and the arts) lists 15 entries -- that is a 66% increase. My user behaviour might be a relic of 15 years ago though when I was way more active. – sgeureka t•c 09:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - I find the categories useful. My primary interest is articles in AFD/P. Having the shortcut makes it easy to find articles in that category. Mjroots (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Beşiktaş J.K. players
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: This should be an intermediate layer in Category:Beşiktaş J.K., not a disambig category. This football club has several branches for other sports. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Dominican Republic people of European American descent
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Weird and confusing name. Looking at the content of this category, it seems that this is not intended for Dominicans with ancestry in the U.S., as the parent categories would indicate, (for which we have Dominican Republic people of American descent) but in fact Dominicans from the local population of largely colonial European background, which is called the White Dominicans. José Ignacio Paliza is an example of that. Deletion is also an option. Place Clichy (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, these articles belong in normal descent subcategories by nationality, and mostly already are in those. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I'd probably support renaming White Dominicans, but this is not the answer. SportingFlyer T·C 13:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 June 6
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 21:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am going to ping all of the participants at the DRV thread.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)- Delete per above dicussion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Pppery, Iñaki Salazar, Marcocapelle, SportingFlyer, Extraordinary Writ, Stifle, Polygnotus, and Alalch E.: please share your thoughts. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Thanks for the ping. I have shared my thoughts here but I will repost them here for convenience:
Why should Wikipedia categorize people based on their ancestry? We don't know the ancestry of 99% of BLP subjects. For example, Category:Dominican Republic people of African American descent contains Max Puig who is also in the category Category:Dominican Republic people of Italian descent. But he is also in Dominican Republic people of Catalan descent, Dominican Republic people of Haitian descent, People of Ligurian descent, Dominican Republic people of Dutch descent and Dominican Republic people of Turks and Caicos Islands descent... Who gives a shit? We should remove this information about non-notable people. Do we really want to list everyone's ancestry for thousands of generations until everyone is from Africa? This obsession is unhealthy and insane. We have no reliable sources that give detailed information on the ancestry of anyone alive today, unless perhaps if you are a Habsburger or similar (and even in that case we only know a fragment). It is weird and potentially offensive to label people incorrectly based on flimsy evidence, notoriously unreliable amateur genealogical research and looks. Why do we not require sources for categorization? Just categorize people on their nationality/nationalities if there are reliable sources.
Polygnotus (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
July 19
[edit]Category:Worms (series)
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: I couldn't just wait to delete it. I already moved all the subcategories to the other one. "Worms (series)" LITTERALLY only contains the main topic article, you will have to rename "Worms (series) games" to "Worms (series)" after. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- @QuantumFoam66: which "other one" do you mean? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- I meant the Category:Worms (series) games QuantumFoam66 (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I edited your reply so that it links to the category page. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- I meant the Category:Worms (series) games QuantumFoam66 (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support This should go so that the subcategory can be moved to this place. However, you're not allowed to remove ongoing discussion notices from categories, that short-circuits the process and is a WP:SUPERVOTE. Please do not do that, or you will face a block for disruptive editing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support, redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Games by genre
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Games by genre to Category:Games by theme
- Propose renaming Category:Board games by genre to Category:Board games by theme
- Propose renaming Category:Role-playing games by genre to Category:Role-playing games by theme
- Nominator's rationale: The categories for non-electronic games only consider "genres" as games by a certain topic and not by their mechanics or structure, unlike the video games by genre category. Perhaps we could rename all these categories to be analogous with the video game genres category. But we might need to rename "Games by type" to "Games by genre" in turn. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Armenian Apostolic churches in Nakhchivan
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Armenian buildings in Azerbaijan
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NPOV, this resembles Category:Buildings and structures in the Republic of Artsakh that was just deleted. Note that three articles are in Category:Armenian Apostolic churches in Azerbaijan which is not a problematic category because it refers to denomination rather than to country/nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep. I created this following Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_2#Architecture_by_country, where there was consensus to change from "Fooian architecture" to "Architecture in Foo"; the main focus of that discussion was whether to allow (and how to name) categories like this, where there were significant numbers of cases of diaspora architecture other than Colonial architecture. This one has a larger sibling Category:Armenian buildings in Turkey, and both of them have see-also links to/from each other and Category:Architecture in Armenia. Deleting it would be detrimental to the encyclopedia as Togh's Melikian Palace would be removed from Armenia-related architecture categories, although it would remain within Culture of Armenia. – Fayenatic London 13:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)- Note: the contents have nw been restructured into 2 subcats for churches and monasteries, with only the palace article held directly in the category. – Fayenatic London 07:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Armenian buildings and structures in Azerbaijan to include Armenian cemetery in Julfa. – Fayenatic London 07:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- If kept, I support the rename per WP:C2C. After renaming, We Are Our Mountains may be moved from Category:Culture of Armenia to this category too. But I am still not sure whether the category should be kept because how would we objectively define a building to have a different nationality? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Racially motivated violence against white people in Africa
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Most of these articles are about anti-colonial or anti-settler violence. They cannot and should not be conflated with racially motivated violence in other contexts. User:Namiba 16:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment, while this might be a reason to rename the category I can't see why we would delete the category on this ground. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Professional wrestling in Cleveland
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: An unnecessary category as all articles are in Category:Professional wrestling shows in Cleveland User:Namiba 16:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom, redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Flags of Manchukuo
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Flags of Manchukuo to Category:Obsolete national flags
- Nominator's rationale: Category contains only one page and is unlikely to have a scope broader than that one page. Reconrabbit 13:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Dual merge, also to Category:Manchukuo. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Mathrubhumi Film Award winners
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: This alleged award is mentioned in only two of the articles in this category. Neither mention cites a reliable source. I find no English-language evidence that this award exists. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Deaths from diabetes
[edit]- Option A: rename Category:Deaths from diabetes to Category:Diabetes-related deaths as deaths are usually not directly caused by diabetes itself but rather by complications related to diabetes.
- Option B: delete Category:Deaths from diabetes as a too indiscriminate characteristic. We do not even have Category:People with diabetes.
- Once there is sufficient initial support for option A or B I will add the subcategories to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support A option because the deaths are usually from complications. I Oppose B's reasoning. You can have a cause of death that is defining, even if the category of people with the condition isn't. See Category:Deaths from poliomyelitis(defining), Category:People with polio (non-defining), and Category:Polio survivors(defining).Mason (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Ape Escape games
[edit]- Propose merge
- Merge Category:Ape Escape games into Category:Ape Escape
- Nominator's rationale Parent category is too small in scope to warrant a subcategory, I believe it should be merged but it might be fiercely contested. MimirIsSmart (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, this merge would remove the content from the other current parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment But I can just move all subcategories in "Ape Escape games" to "Ape Escape" first, then wait for deletion. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Ape Escape is about the franchise, it does not belong in the video games tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Do not merge, as there is a significant amount of non-video game content in the franchise. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Ape Escape is about the franchise, it does not belong in the video games tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment But I can just move all subcategories in "Ape Escape games" to "Ape Escape" first, then wait for deletion. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Racially motivated violence against Europeans
[edit]- Propose renaming:
- Nominator's rationale: The first of these categories formerly included violence against white colonialists in Asia or the Americas, which isn't really comparable to anti-white attacks in Europe. I felt that (following the example of Category:Racially motivated violence against white people in Africa that it was more appropriate to subcategorize by location of the attacks, rather than by the origin of the victims.
- In addition, these categories already seems to be subcategories of Category:Racially motivated violence in Europe, strengthening the case that they ought to be subcategories by location. GCarty (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support in spirit, but instead of white people/black people. It should be Category:Racially motivated violence in CONTINENT against people of African descent to make it clearer that the location and descent are easier to distinguish. Mason (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
July 18
[edit]Category:Fictional characters who use magic
[edit]- Propose renaming:
- Category:Fictional characters who use magic to Category:Fictional magicians and sorcerers
- Category:Fictional characters who use magic by franchise to Category:Fictional magicians by franchise
- Category:Buffyverse characters who use magic to Category:Buffyverse magicians
- Category:DC Comics characters who use magic to Category:DC Comics magicians
- Category:Marvel Comics characters who use magic to Category:Marvel Comics magicians
- Category:Oz (franchise) characters who use magic to Category:Oz (franchise) magicians
- Category:Fictional characters who use magic by medium to Category:Fictional magicians by medium
- Category:Fictional characters who use magic by franchise to Category:Fictional magicians by franchise
- Category:Fictional characters who use magic to Category:Fictional magicians and sorcerers
- Nominator's rationale: I think this is long overdue. The reason I'm suggesting this is because of the precedent established by the renaming of multiple other categories about characters with various superpowers, including:
- So you get where I'm going with this right? "Fictional magicians" just sounds better than "Fictional characters who use magic", and for these renamed subcategories the new names will be shorter and more concise. AHI-3000 (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just a question: how would we distinguish fictional magicians from fictional wizards and witches? According to the main article these are very similar concepts. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: Come to think of it, the lines between terms like mage, magician, sorcerer, warlock, witch, wizard, etc are all rather blurry, many of them are often interchangeable synonyms of each other. AHI-3000 (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that is my worry too. When would articles be added to Category:Fictional magicians and sorcerers and when would they be added to Category:Fictional wizards? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: Come to think of it, the lines between terms like mage, magician, sorcerer, warlock, witch, wizard, etc are all rather blurry, many of them are often interchangeable synonyms of each other. AHI-3000 (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The reason they are named like this is because "magician" is disambiguated between Magician (fantasy) and stage magician. It is not obvious that the proposed name indicates the character can use real magic, or just performs parlor tricks. I frankly cannot think of any better alternative than what it's named already, besides perhaps "Fictional magic-users" - so that might be a potential renaming option but in no way an urgent one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Zxcvbnm: I did consider that, which is why I went with "Fictional magicians and sorcerers" instead of just "Category:Fictional magicians" because that was already being used as a disambiguation. I don't think it's that ambiguous, clearly "Ficitonal magicians and sorcerers" already implies that all these characters have genuine magic powers and are not stage magicians. AHI-3000 (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, I think that just means it could include both stage magicians and actual mages as long as they utilize some form of magic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Zxcvbnm: I did consider that, which is why I went with "Fictional magicians and sorcerers" instead of just "Category:Fictional magicians" because that was already being used as a disambiguation. I don't think it's that ambiguous, clearly "Ficitonal magicians and sorcerers" already implies that all these characters have genuine magic powers and are not stage magicians. AHI-3000 (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Zxcvbnm. I get what nom is trying to do, but I'm afraid it's not going to be an improvement. Magician is a real-world profession where trickery and deception are used to give the audience the illusion of magic, but the laws of physics aren't actually broken. When we talk about magic in fiction, however, it's almost always breaking the laws of physics, like creating things out of nothing, telekinesis, teleportation, that kind of stuff. Cumbersome as the current catnames might sound, they are accurate and do their "job" well. NLeeuw (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Zxcvbnm and @Nederlandse Leeuw: We already have Category:Fictional stage magicians to differentiate entertainers from actual magic users in fiction. I added "Fictional magicians and sorcerers" for that reason. AHI-3000 (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The way I see it: "Anyone can use magic, but not everyone is a magician". A magician is a lot more specific and as a result can diminish the amount of characters that would fit into this category. Many characters can use a type of magic, but they are usually classified as something else and not the title of "magician". CaptainGalaxy 12:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Video games about crime
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Video games about crime to Category:Crime video games
- Nominator's rationale: This category is now a subcategory of Category:Video games by narrative genre. For the sake of consistency with other subcats in this category, it should be renamed with the subject up front instead of "Video games about...". This also makes it consistent with other medium subcategories listed at Category:Crime fiction (such as Category:Crime films and Category:Crime novels). AHI-3000 (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment, we have not only Category:Crime fiction but also Category:Fiction about crime. Also Category:Works about crime. I am unsure what to think about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: I think there should be a discussion about the overlap between the "Crime fiction", "Fiction about crime", and "Works about crime" categories. I think that's kinda redundant, and we only really need one of those categories (I personally prefer "Crime fiction" as the title). AHI-3000 (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment, if we rename to "Crime video games" we would have to only include games themed after crime fiction, and exclude games like Cyberpunk 2077, due to what the new title would imply. Its subcategories may also have to be moved, so just keep the original name. Also, please don't also rename "Organized crime video games." QuantumFoam66 (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Video games about the military
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Video games about the military to Category:Military and war video games
- Nominator's rationale: This category is now a subcategory of Category:Video games by narrative genre. For the sake of consistency with other subcats in this category, it should be renamed with the subject up front instead of "Video games about...". Besides, this is new name would just roll off the tongue better IMO. AHI-3000 (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- In the previous discussion a good point was made that "military" instead of "war" makes it more managable. With a bit of exaggeration almost every video game contains elements of war, that is too broad. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: I think "Military and war video games" isn't too ambiguous of a title. I think that name implies exactly that, games which thematically revolve around militaries and military conflicts. It's not about any generic violent conflict, some game about a gang war belongs in Category:Organized crime video games for example. AHI-3000 (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Sailing simulators
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Sailing simulators to Category:Sailing video games
- Nominator's rationale: Practically the same thing, desired target category also only contains 2 articles. So this makes perfect sense. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom AHI-3000 (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose And merge Category:Sailing video games into Category:Video games about ships and boats instead. "Sailing simulators" is a more descriptive name for the genre and the category has been around 10 years longer without issue until now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- In its current state, Category:Sailing video games is a redundant category layer, so I agree with Zxcvbnm on upmerging that one. I have tagged it. Maybe merge to other parent categories too, not just to Category:Video games about ships and boats. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just delete Category:Sailing video games, and keep Category:Sailing simulators. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Dutch people of the Eighty Years' War (Spanish Empire)
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Dutch people of the Eighty Years' War (Spanish Empire) to Category:???
- Nominator's rationale: From the category description this is supposed to be for Dutch people who served the Spanish Empire during the Eight Years War. The current name doesn't convey that's the relationship.
I don't have a good rename suggestion, but I think the current version is confusing. Mason (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agree that it is a confusing title. Suggestion:
Category:Pro-Spanish Dutch people of the Eighty Years' WarorCategory:Pro-Spanish people from the Netherlands of the Eighty Years' War, the latter because the term "Dutch" may not include Frisian or Flemish people. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- What is missing here is the fact that it concerns military personnel. It is not just about opinions but on which side people fight. So technically it should become Category:Military personnel from the Netherlands in the Spanish army during the Eighty Years' War. But this is incredibly long and it is also unlike any other category. So I start wondering if we shouldn't merge this category and its sibling to the parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Worms (series) games
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Worms (series) games to Category:Worms (series)
- Nominator's rationale: I previously nominated this category but I removed for some reason, but I'm doing it again, the parent category "Worms (series)" only contains the main subject, and "Worms (series) games" contains 27 articles. So This makes the category 100% useless. We usually only categorize video game franchises like this if there is a significant amount of content related to the franchise, other than individual games.
We also have to move all subcategories in this category to the desired parent category first (I think).
QuantumFoam66 (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom AHI-3000 (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is not something to support. It for some reason wasn't the way I was supposed to do it. Aparently I had to do it the other way around. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, this merge would remove the content from many other current parent categories. It is rather Category:Worms (series) that should be nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Marcocapelle; instead Category:Worms (series) should be deleted and the other one moved to its current name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fine, in face I'm doing that right now. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Aztec scholars
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Aztec scholars to Category:Scholars of the Aztecs
- Nominator's rationale: Per the category description, this category is for scholars of the Aztec people, rather than Aztec people who are scholars. I think we should rename it to make that distinction clearer. Mason (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. GCarty (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Futurama films
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Redundant to its subcategory about season 5. This also categorizes categories with categories in a way that is likely better served by categorizing individual articles. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support, this does seem rather redundant considering that the category for Season 5 covers all the exact same articles. AHI-3000 (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, this would remove the content from many other current parent categories (about films). If anything, the subcategory should be nominated (and if that is kept, it shouldn't be a subcategory). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Marcocapelle; delete the subcategory instead as it's less understandable and relatively pointless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Broken Sword games
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Broken Sword games to Category:Broken Sword
- Nominator's rationale: Same logic with Monkey Island. The parent category currently contains only 2 articles. And if we merge, we'll get a total of just 9 articles. It makes navigation easier, but we also have to move all of this category's subcategories manually, because the bot doesn't do that. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. GLTPRE (talk) 05:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, this merge would remove the content from the video games tree. It is rather Category:Broken Sword that should be nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- what do you mean by "remove the content from the Video games tree" QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Period, valid subcategorization scheme. Simple size is no longer an argument due to the deprecation of SMALLCAT, one has to prove that the parent is well and truly unnecessary and there is an article there that isn't about one of the games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I can't really understand what you mean, but I think you're saying when I make these kinds nominations I apparently have to do it the other way around. I guess. There are only nine articles overall anyway, so do you still want a merge to be done? QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Monkey Island games
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Monkey Island games to Category:Monkey Island
- Nominator's rationale: This category is small, and its parent category contains only 2 subcategories and 4 (3 now i think) articles. If we merged this with the other category it would make navigation easier, but we've got to add all categories to the parent category too, maybe I can just do that right now. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support, there's no reason to keep this category separate, especially because this franchise only seems to have video games but no other notable works in other media. AHI-3000 (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I also nominated "Broken Sword games" as well as Worms series games QuantumFoam66 (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support, there's no reason to keep this category separate, especially because this franchise only seems to have video games but no other notable works in other media. AHI-3000 (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. GLTPRE (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, this merge would remove the content from the video games tree. It is rather Category:Monkey Island that should be nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment What do you even mean by "remove the content from the video games tree"? QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Valid categorization scheme; the parent contains subcategories for games and characters. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Therapy 2093
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: With one album already appropriately categorized in Category:Therapy 2093 albums and the only article related to the musician, this eponymous category is unnecessary per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Sultans of Bijapur
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Sultans of Bijapur to Category:Adil Shahi dynasty
- Nominator's rationale: The article of the higher level cat, Adil Shahi dynasty, was moved to Sultanate of Bijapur, of which there is already a higher level cat for, (or will be soon when CFDS renames Category:Bijapur Sultanate to Category:Sultanate of Bijapur) so this category should be merged with Category:Adil Shahi dynasty, as right now the higher up cat serves no purpose if it does not include the members of the dynasty, which are included here. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, this merge will remove the content from the tree of Category:Sultans and Category:Indian monarchs. If anything, Category:Adil Shahi dynasty should be nominated for upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle Yes, it would be removed from those trees, but an upmerge of Adil Shahi dynasty would remove that cat from the Category:Muslim dynasties of India tree; I think the dynasty name should definitely be mentioned in whatever cat holds the sultans, rather than just "Sultans of Bijapur"; a cat name for Category:Sultans of Bijapur of "Adil Shahi sultans" would allow it to be in all three cat trees of Category:Sultans, Category:Indian monarchs, and Category:Muslim dynasties of India, as is done with the cats of Category:Bahmani sultans and Category:Ghaznavid sultans, which I feel is best in light of your reasoning. (and thus Category:Adil Shahi dynasty would be merged into Category:People from the Bijapur Sultanate) Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- The name of the dynasty is mentioned in main article List of Sultans of Bijapur which is the main article of this category. I suppose that suffices, especially considering the fact that the dynasty no longer has its own article. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle Yes, it would be removed from those trees, but an upmerge of Adil Shahi dynasty would remove that cat from the Category:Muslim dynasties of India tree; I think the dynasty name should definitely be mentioned in whatever cat holds the sultans, rather than just "Sultans of Bijapur"; a cat name for Category:Sultans of Bijapur of "Adil Shahi sultans" would allow it to be in all three cat trees of Category:Sultans, Category:Indian monarchs, and Category:Muslim dynasties of India, as is done with the cats of Category:Bahmani sultans and Category:Ghaznavid sultans, which I feel is best in light of your reasoning. (and thus Category:Adil Shahi dynasty would be merged into Category:People from the Bijapur Sultanate) Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Marcocapelle. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Prehistory by country
[edit]- Preliminary discussion on naming consistency for the child categories of Category:Prehistory by country (the current catname Category:Prehistory by country itself has recently been agreed, and does not need to be changed). Do we prefer:
- Preliminary discussion on naming consistency for the child categories of Category:Prehistory by country (the current catname Category:Prehistory by country itself has recently been agreed, and does not need to be changed). Do we prefer:
- A: Prehistoric Fooland, or
- B: Prehistory of Fooland?
- Nominator's rationale: Numerically, I do not see a major preference in catnames or main article titles, so a speedy rename per WP:C2C or WP:C2D will probably not apply, and we should have a full discussion. As this is an (indirect) follow-up to our recent CFR on Middle Ages by country (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 11#Middle Ages by country), which resulted in a Rename all to Medieval history of Fooland, this precedent would favour option B. But the almost equally high frequency of Prehistoric Fooland including in main article titles should be taken into account. (A case could even be made that a debate should be had on which way WP:TITLECON should lean in the mainspace before we make our decision here, but we didn't do that for Middle Ages by country either). Whichever option we decide, I recommend leaving a redirect for all categories that we decide to rename, just like last time, in order to ease navigation and editing, and prevent duplication. NLeeuw (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping to participants of previous discussion: @Marcocapelle, Smasongarrison, Ham II, Omnis Scientia, and HouseBlaster: for your consideration. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- A: Prehistoric Fooland Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, why is that your preference? NLeeuw (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- The easiest way to have a consistent naming scheme for all periods would be to have Prehistory of / Ancient history of / Medieval history of / Early modern history of / Modern history of / Contemporary history of Fooland, as I've argued previously. We've begun to move in that direction for medieval and early modern history.
As NLeeuw rightly notes, though, we haven't really considered consistency with article titles in mainspace for those moves. If we did have mass RMs for the country articles in each of these categories, we might find it being argued that there should be consistency with the article titles Prehistory, Ancient history, Middle Ages, Early modern period, Modern era (
which currently has an active RM for moving the title to Modern periodedit on 20 July: now closed as no consensus) and Contemporary history. (There are corresponding category names for all of these, with one exception: Category:Modern history.) That could then result in a naming scheme (for article titles at first) of Prehistory of Fooland / Ancient history of Fooland / Fooland in the Middle Ages / Fooland in the early modern period / Fooland in the modern era or Fooland in the modern period or Modern history of Fooland (only the third of these seems very satisfactory to me) / Contemporary history of Fooland.With both those possible naming schemes in mind, I'm leaning towards B: Prehistory of Fooland. But it might be better to test the waters first with a mass RM for all articles following whichever of these two styles we think it would be better to change: Prehistoric [place – not necessarily a country] (examples here) or Prehistory of [place] (examples here). If a preference emerged for Prehistoric Fooland over Prehistory of Fooland it wouldn't be a disaster for the naming schemes I've suggested above, as prehistory could be treated as being outside history, which it is. Ham II (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would lean B because it matches the pattern in the previous Cfd. Both are fine, ultimately, though. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak preference for option B, ultimately they are both well acceptable and it only matters that we are consistent. But given the outcome of the previous discussion it makes sense that we continue along the same line. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Option B for consistency with the history categories, which is the only possible way I can think of distinguishing the two options. – Joe (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- As nom, I should add that the rationale for the previous CfR applies even more strongly here: none of these countries existed as such in prehistoric times. Saying "Prehistoric United States" or "Prehistoric Dominican Republic" is nonsensical, as "states" and "republics" didn't exist, let alone those with the names we know them by today. But "Prehistory of United States" works perfectly well, linguistically speaking, because it literally means "the time before the United States existed", although more specifically "the time before written cultures existed on the territory of the current United States". (This was less of a problem in the previous CfR, where we could argue "Medieval France" and "Medieval England" were already a thing, though many other countries not yet, so we still went with Medieval history of Fooland to be on the safe side). This accuracy argument is more important to me than the consistency argument (but not necessarily decisive). NLeeuw (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Prehistory of the United States", which is already the category name, but otherwise I fully agree. Ham II (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Year by category — used with year parameter(s) equals year in page title
[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: nomination merged to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 13#Category:Year by category — used with year parameter(s) ≠ year in page title
- Nominator's rationale: Better grammar; see . Courtesy pings to @Fayenatic london and LaundryPizza03. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The em dash is really weird. Why not rename to Category:Year by category with year parameter(s) matching year in page title? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 10:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Establishments in German cities by year
[edit]- Propose merging Category:1827 establishments in Bremen to Category:1827 establishments in Germany and Category:19th-century establishments in Bremen
- Propose merging Category:1852 establishments in Bremen to Category:1852 establishments in Germany and Category:19th-century establishments in Bremen
- Propose merging Category:1857 establishments in Bremen to Category:1857 establishments in Germany and Category:19th-century establishments in Bremen
- Propose merging Category:1861 establishments in Bremen to Category:1861 establishments in Germany and Category:19th-century establishments in Bremen
- Propose deleting Category:1827 in Bremen
- Propose deleting Category:1852 in Bremen
- Propose deleting Category:1857 in Bremen
- Propose deleting Category:1861 in Bremen
- Propose deleting Category:1820s establishments in Bremen
- Propose deleting Category:1850s establishments in Bremen
- Propose deleting Category:1860s establishments in Bremen
- Propose deleting Category:Years of the 19th century in Bremen
- Propose deleting Category:Years in Bremen
- Propose deleting Category:Decades in Bremen
- Propose deleting Category:Establishments in Bremen by year
- Propose deleting Category:Establishments in Bremen by decade
- Propose renaming Category:1858 establishments in Frankfurt to Category:19th-century establishments in Frankfurt and merging to Category:1858 establishments in Germany
- Propose merging Category:1899 establishments in Frankfurt to Category:1899 establishments in Germany and Category:19th-century establishments in Frankfurt
- Nominator's rationale: There is scope for growth in century categories, but year categories are not justified here. – Fayenatic London 11:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom, but the pre-1866 "in Germany" categories should be renamed to "in the German Confederation" because Germany as a unified country did not exist yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support all, and agree with pre-1866 establishments in the German Confederation. PearlyGigs (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some categories were not tagged; I will do so. If there are no further comments in a week, I would close this as merge/rename/delete as nominated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
July 17
[edit]Category:American women artists of Chinese descent
[edit]- Propose merging Category:American women artists of Chinese descent to Category:American artists of Chinese descent
- Propose merging Category:American women artists of Indian descent to Category:American artists of Indian descent
- Propose merging Category:American male artists of Indian descent to Category:American artists of Indian descent
- Nominator's rationale: I don't see why we need to have an intersection with gender*occupation*Indian/Chinese descent. Male and women artists are non-diffusiong. Mason (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Scottish emigrants to the Tsardom of Russia
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: 3x merge for now, this is a very narrow intersection that's not needed for diffusion Mason (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support merge to the first two merge targets, a one-article category is not helpful for navigation. I am in doubt about the third merge target because there wasn't a Great Britain or United Kkngdom yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:City founders from the Tsardom of Russia
[edit]- Propose merging Category:City founders from the Tsardom of Russia to Category:Russian city founders
- Propose merging Category:Explorers from the Tsardom of Russia to Category:Russian explorers
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. These categories are underpopulated, and don't help navigation with the same individual person in them. Mason (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose after I populated these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Indonesian women religious leaders
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer merge for now. (And nuns are religious works, not leaders) Mason (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge, agree with both of nominator's points. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Funeral and burial of Abraham Lincoln
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: These are venues associated with the funeral of Lincoln. Other than the article, the only ones related to Lincoln's funeral are his burial ground and the catafalque which should be moved to Category:Abraham Lincoln. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Populated places disestablished in New Brunswick in 2023
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: All of these relate to a single government reform in this year. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- This is a bit odd. The places haven't been disestablished but the local governments have. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- My first thought was to merge to Category:2023 disestablishments in New Brunswick, and remove them from the "Populated places disestablished" hierarchy. Compare Category:1974 disestablishments in New Brunswick which includes a raft of former electoral districts. However, the similar cases that arose from the 2015 Manitoba municipal amalgamations are directly within Category:Populated places disestablished in 2015, and disincorporated French communes are in the 2016 sibling, etc, so we should either purge all such cases of disincorporation, or keep/rename the category in some way. Would "disincorporated" be more helpful than "disestablished"? Perhaps all of Category:Populated places by year of disestablishment should be split between places that have been destroyed and those that were merely disincorporated. – Fayenatic London 20:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I concur with your first thought the most. Splitting seems unnecessarily complex. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I guess that would also entail merging to Category:Populated places disestablished in 2023. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I concur with your first thought the most. Splitting seems unnecessarily complex. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)- @LaundryPizza03: my original point was that the place hasn't been disestablished. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Registrars of the Order of the Garter
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Registrars of the Order of the Garter to Category:Registers of the Order of the Garter
- Nominator's rationale: In the Order of the Garter, there is no, and has seemingly never been an, office of 'Registrar'; it appears always to have been 'Register', and this is explained in the article with a citation link. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the category.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)- I would say delete per WP:NONDEF. Its notable to be a Knight or Lady of the Garter but not a register or registrar. I can't even find out if its even a position. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Mid-Ohio Conference football templates
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: The American Mideast Conference last sponsored football in 1970 when the conference was known as the Mid-Ohio Conference. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:First women admitted to degrees at Oxford
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: While
notableinteresting, I'd say this is trivial. Perhaps Listify. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Not sure how anything can be admittedly notable and also trivial, but since I agree the topic is undoubtedly notable, it's a reasonable topic for both categories and articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Chiswick Chap, I was going for the word "interesting" and have updated my rationale to reflect that. But we don't categorize by degrees. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, we categorize by occupation, not by admission to education. Besides "first" is quite subjective. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your reply is very quick, and certainly wrong, which suggests it wasn't considered. "First" can mean "the first group of women admitted to degrees at Oxford", which is objectively definable. And since when was occupation the only possible category? It obviously isn't, there are heaps of other categories, like 1949 births and people from different countries, to name but two. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- If kept, then rename to Category:Women admitted to degrees at Oxford in 1920 to avoid confusion about the word "first". Marcocapelle (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Might the use of the word "first" be clarified if the category were titled "Women first admitted to degrees at Oxford?" The significance of the event is not that these women received degrees in 1920, but that women had been denied degrees prior to that year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Schonblom (talk • contribs) 20:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Eric Schonblom, that's true of every university then, is it not? Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your reply is very quick, and certainly wrong, which suggests it wasn't considered. "First" can mean "the first group of women admitted to degrees at Oxford", which is objectively definable. And since when was occupation the only possible category? It obviously isn't, there are heaps of other categories, like 1949 births and people from different countries, to name but two. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Listify. Categories are meant to help navigation. They are not just bundles of interesting things.Mason (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Converting this to an article with a list is a good idea. The references are already on the category page. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle, I've got a draft in the works. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Its also worth noting this is a list of women who were conferred degrees in 1920. They "graduated" a few years earlier, at different times. This is basically a ceremony to award degrees. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! Marcocapelle (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Update: First women admitted to degrees at the University of Oxford has been moved to mainspace i.e. listified. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! Marcocapelle (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Models from London by borough
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Merge/Delete per WP:OCLOCATION Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Shouldn't it be a dual merge to both parent categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle, I was planning to slowly phase out the "People by Royal/London Borough of Foo" categories. Its quite different from the New York City boroughs (not least that there are far more of those) and, as far as I can tell, most of the people categorized by London borough are, more of than not, from there.
- In fact, I was going to suggest a purge of anyone who is not originally from London. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I wouldn't oppose that, but until there has been a discussion about it it should still be a dual merge. Suppose consensus is against the idea, then borough categories ought to remain properly populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle, Alright, I will add those targets then. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I wouldn't oppose that, but until there has been a discussion about it it should still be a dual merge. Suppose consensus is against the idea, then borough categories ought to remain properly populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep categories with 5 or more members, i.e. Camden, Croydon, Hackney, H&F, K&C, TH, Wandsworth & Westminster. Merge the rest as too small to be useful for navigation. I looked at some marginal cases and was not able to populate them further. – Fayenatic London 18:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london, wouldn't you agree that this is WP:OCLOCATION? Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Omnis Scientia That guideline permits "diffusing a large category". As for "relevant bearing", IMHO it is relevant that some of these models come from disadvantaged areas of the capital. – Fayenatic London 09:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london, I would disagree - I don't think the category is particularly large in comparison to others to require diffusion - but I won't argue with you on it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would cheerfully concede to the majority if more editors think they should all be merged. I will place a notice at WT:LONDON. – Fayenatic London 10:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london, I would disagree - I don't think the category is particularly large in comparison to others to require diffusion - but I won't argue with you on it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Omnis Scientia That guideline permits "diffusing a large category". As for "relevant bearing", IMHO it is relevant that some of these models come from disadvantaged areas of the capital. – Fayenatic London 09:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london, wouldn't you agree that this is WP:OCLOCATION? Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Religion in China Redux
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Religion under the Shang dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religion in the Shang dynasty
- Propose renaming Category:Religion under the Han dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religion in the Han dynasty
- Propose renaming Category:Religion under the Jin dynasty (266–420) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religion in the Jin dynasty (266–420)
- Propose renaming Category:Religion under the Tang dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religion in the Tang dynasty
- Propose renaming Category:Religion under the Song dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religion in the Song dynasty
- Propose renaming Category:Religion under the Jin dynasty (1115–1234) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religion in the Jin dynasty (1115–1234)
- Propose renaming Category:Religion under the Yuan dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religion in the Yuan dynasty
- Propose renaming Category:Religion under the Ming dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religion in the Ming dynasty
- Propose renaming Category:Religion under the Qing dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Religion in the Qing dynasty
- Nominator's rationale: The rationale given by Marcocapelle for the previous CFD back in May:
"in" is an odd preproposition in relation to a dynasty, "under" or "during" makes more sense.
This is usually the case, but as regards China X dynasty is the most common and natural form in English for the name of the state itself. Per the standard for analogous categories, e.g. Category:Religion in the Byzantine Empire, I think reassuming the previous pattern would be ideal. Remsense诉 22:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, Category:Religion in the Byzantine Empire is not an analogous category because Byzantine does not refer to a dynasty. A good analogous example is Category:People under the Almoravid dynasty. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- The state is what is being referred to here, wholly in line with the language used in English-language literature about China. Remsense诉 04:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- A dynasty is something else than a state. If anything, the state is China. With the other example, the Almoravid dynasty, there is no commonly used state name at all, and that is also fine. State names may be derived from the dynasty name, e.g. Sassanid Empire and Sassanid dynasty but that is not the case here either. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't mean to be rude, but I feel this is being overly deliberate about universal boundaries between interwoven concepts in a way that, I stress, ignores actual usage. In part, these lexical differences can be ascribed to the distinct paradigms of dynasties in China compared to elsewhere. Byzantium was not really dynastic at its core at all, with the legitimacy of the state always clearly surpassing that of lineages. China was not the opposite per se, it's just that there was a totally different, more consubstantial relationship between the Chinese state and its ruling dynasty.
- Putting an even finer point on the "actual usage" argument: in a fulltext search of my library of China-related books, "under the Han dynasty" appears verbatim at some point in 14 books, while "in the Han dynasty" appears in 91! This ratio is 1:27 for the Shang, 11:21 for the Jin (both represented), 8:67 for the Tang, 6:54 for the Song, 11:42 for the Yuan, 16:52 for the Ming, and 7:51 for the Qing. This must reflect some conventional usage of "dynasty" in the name of a state, right? Remsense诉 05:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle, not to hound, but do you have any thoughts about this? To be clear, there's no lexical weirdness about the dataset above: "X dynasty" is being used as the name of the state in all the results I manually checked. Remsense诉 06:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- A dynasty is something else than a state. If anything, the state is China. With the other example, the Almoravid dynasty, there is no commonly used state name at all, and that is also fine. State names may be derived from the dynasty name, e.g. Sassanid Empire and Sassanid dynasty but that is not the case here either. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- The state is what is being referred to here, wholly in line with the language used in English-language literature about China. Remsense诉 04:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Remsense诉 23:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't make much sense unless there is a consistent translation issue in these books. I can understand the misunderstanding if Chinese language uses the same word for "dynasty" and "empire" while in English we have two words for it with different meaning. I'm not saying this is the case but it is the only hypothesis I can come up with. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's not a "translation issue": most are native English books. Like I've said multiple times, it is the way the states are often referred to in English. I haven't been lying or misspeaking when I've repeatedly said that. I really didn't want to say something this blunt, but this is rather obvious and non-controversial to anyone who's read a little in English about Chinese history, or even China in general. What else would I have to do to demonstrate this fact to you? Remsense诉 02:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Here, to make it more concrete:
- It's not a "translation issue": most are native English books. Like I've said multiple times, it is the way the states are often referred to in English. I haven't been lying or misspeaking when I've repeatedly said that. I really didn't want to say something this blunt, but this is rather obvious and non-controversial to anyone who's read a little in English about Chinese history, or even China in general. What else would I have to do to demonstrate this fact to you? Remsense诉 02:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Brief usage examples
|
---|
|
- Is this helpful at all? If not, I would start being concerned that there's no possible thing I could do to demonstrate that commonplace usage happens to lie outside your personal intuitions in this case. Remsense诉 03:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- English-language historians of China may have adopted the Chinese way of equating dynasties and empires, but that is not how we normally use English language. This is a global encyclopedia, not a Chinese one. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Is this helpful at all? If not, I would start being concerned that there's no possible thing I could do to demonstrate that commonplace usage happens to lie outside your personal intuitions in this case. Remsense诉 03:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- The proposed versions do not feel right grammatically. What I would expect to read under that sort of construction would be something like, eg., "Religion in Shang dynasty China". CMD (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Do the excerpts directly quoted above make you feel similarly? To address your notion head-on: those would not be the COMMONNAMES for these states. The COMMONNAMES for these states are, instead, Shang dynasty, Zhou dynasty, et al. I cannot make this clear enough. Remsense诉 04:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- As an ancillary but hopefully illustrative point: I prefer in to during here because there were often multiple dynastic states at a given time throughout Chinese history, so it would be potentially somewhat ambiguous if one were to speak of matters during the Song and during the Jin in a context where they were both around but did not begin or end around the same time. I have to reiterate, this is pretty much equivalent to one writing in the Byzantine Empire. Remsense诉 04:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- The excerpts above seem to mostly use "in" in a temporal sense, whereas reading the category "in" reads as being used geographically. It is not grammatically equivalent to write about a dynasty as compared to an Empire. CMD (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- The COMMONNAMES for the states are exactly as above: that is why the articles for the states are named as such, after much historical deliberation onsite. However, your nuance is well-taken, but I'm not really sure how to cleanly demonstrate usage that can't be characterized as partially temporal, given that these are states that overlap in geographical area and are (mostly) consecutive temporally. Here's one, though:
- Thomas Mullaney, The Chinese Computer (2024): Chinese telegraphy dates back to 1871, when a newly laid telegraphic cable between Shanghai and Hong Kong linked the Qing dynasty (1644–1911) to a rapidly expanding international network dominated by the British Empire.
- Remsense诉 05:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- The common name for the state in all of these cases is "China". Dynasty names are useful tools both as disambiguation and as a simple way to vary the text with a bit of metonymy, but that does not mean the grammar transfers exactly. The example you gave reads fine to me, but it's not the same as what is proposed. Grammar considerations are why I assume all the proposed titles maintain "the", rather than what would be an unusual "Religion in Ming dynasty". Formulations like I noted above or a shorter "Ming China" would keep the same grammar though. CMD (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is more common to say that something happened "in the Ming dynasty" or "during the Ming dynasty" than "under the Ming dynasty", because the phrase "Ming dynasty" most often refers to a state and a time period rather than a set of rulers. I realize this usage may be unfamiliar for people who haven't spent much time reading about Chinese history, but it is what's most common in reliable English-language sources about the subject. It's also not true that
The common name for the state in all of these cases is "China"
– for instance, the Jin dynasty (1115–1234) constituted only part of China by any reasonable definition, as it coexisted with the Song dynasty among other states. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)- I want to add that the phrase "(specific religion) during the X dynasty" is also used in articles like Islam during the Song dynasty, Islam during the Ming dynasty, Islam during the Qing dynasty, and Shamanism during the Qing dynasty. On the other hand, the phrase "Religion in the X dynasty" is used in the article Religion in the Song dynasty. --Wengier (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- As that article states, the Jin Dynasty "was an imperial dynasty of China". That "during" is the same as "in" seems more evidence that the usage of "in" in such cases is temporal? If the proposal was Category:Religion during the Ming dynasty this would be a different discussion. CMD (talk) 06:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is more common to say that something happened "in the Ming dynasty" or "during the Ming dynasty" than "under the Ming dynasty", because the phrase "Ming dynasty" most often refers to a state and a time period rather than a set of rulers. I realize this usage may be unfamiliar for people who haven't spent much time reading about Chinese history, but it is what's most common in reliable English-language sources about the subject. It's also not true that
- The common name for the state in all of these cases is "China". Dynasty names are useful tools both as disambiguation and as a simple way to vary the text with a bit of metonymy, but that does not mean the grammar transfers exactly. The example you gave reads fine to me, but it's not the same as what is proposed. Grammar considerations are why I assume all the proposed titles maintain "the", rather than what would be an unusual "Religion in Ming dynasty". Formulations like I noted above or a shorter "Ming China" would keep the same grammar though. CMD (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- The COMMONNAMES for the states are exactly as above: that is why the articles for the states are named as such, after much historical deliberation onsite. However, your nuance is well-taken, but I'm not really sure how to cleanly demonstrate usage that can't be characterized as partially temporal, given that these are states that overlap in geographical area and are (mostly) consecutive temporally. Here's one, though:
- The excerpts above seem to mostly use "in" in a temporal sense, whereas reading the category "in" reads as being used geographically. It is not grammatically equivalent to write about a dynasty as compared to an Empire. CMD (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support: Consistent with the article Religion in the Song dynasty. --Wengier (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Thai television series debuts by decade
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: This is an umbrella category for a whole slew of subcategories, which each have a slew of subcategories. However, each is sparsely populated. This is a logical area for a navigation template, something that there may be a bot already to populate. I am suggesting we discuss this template with a view to incorporating the whole hierarchy of content into a navigation template. If that discussion reaches that conclusion, then processes should be put in hand to populate the template and depopulate the sub and sub-sub categories, which may then be deleted as empty. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. What? Why would we create a template for unrelated entries that users will likely not ever use? This category system is exactly how this should be handled and how it is handled for other countries - see Category:Television series debuts by country and decade. This is a very strange deletion nomination. Gonnym (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. The question should perhaps be what to do with the sparsely-populated early year subcats of Category:Thai television series debuts by year. A nomination to merge 1965, 1980, 1990, 1991 and 1999 to their decade parents would probably gain support. – Fayenatic London 08:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I would support that. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, some of the currently-empty subcats were created by วรุฒ หิ่มสาใจ and later emptied by the same editor, having been used temporarily for some series that started and finished within one year. – Fayenatic London 09:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- It seems they've created a tree that I don't think exists in other countries. Category:1990 Thai television dramas instead of Category:1990 Thai television series debuts and Category:1990s Thai drama television series (see Category:2010s American drama television series). Gonnym (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Baltic Germans
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Baltic Germans to Category:Baltic-German culture
- Nominator's rationale: Three related categories:
I am not sure which way to merge, but current situation makes a mess Estopedist1 (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- what I think should happen is it should be merged into "Category:Baltic-German people", than the page should be split into a new catigory called "Category:Lists of Baltic-German German people". the "Category:Baltic-German culture" should be made a subcategory of Baltic-German people. Zyxrq (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as parent category of Category:Baltic-German people and Category:Baltic-German culture which are clearly different subcategories. Presumably there is also room for a Category:Baltic-German history. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I generally agree. Zyxrq (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: in general, Baltic Germans (see this article) means "Baltic-German people". Umbrella concept should be something like "Baltic German world" (e.g. Wikidata bundle Wikidata:Q8459480) Estopedist1 (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ethnic categories are normally organized as a topic category on top and a "people" subcategory for biographies. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Estopedist1 @Marcocapelle I think this is kind of on topic but you guys think it would be Appropriate to create a new Template such as, Template:Baltic-Germans similar to Template:Baltic states for organizational purposes? Zyxrq (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ethnic categories are normally organized as a topic category on top and a "people" subcategory for biographies. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: in general, Baltic Germans (see this article) means "Baltic-German people". Umbrella concept should be something like "Baltic German world" (e.g. Wikidata bundle Wikidata:Q8459480) Estopedist1 (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I generally agree. Zyxrq (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Bengali cinema
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Cinema of West Bengal to Category:Bengali cinema, India
- Nominator's rationale: The category should be changed since the main article's name was changed from Cinema of West Bengal to Bengali cinema, India. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment, it is not a straightforward case of WP:C2D because nominator moved the article without RM. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Bengali cinema in India" would be better, but I suggest reverting the undiscussed page move instead for now, as this is part of Category:Culture of West Bengal, even though "[language] cinema" is the dominant naming format in Category:Indian film industries. @Jayanthkumar123: please see WP:RM#CM for how to start a discussion on a contested page move. – Fayenatic London 12:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Jazzland Records (1960) albums
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Jazzland Records (1960) albums to Category:Jazzland Records albums
- Nominator's rationale: Not sure why two categories were created, but now releases in two categories belong to the same label. The only other label with a similar name also already has its own category: Category:Jazzland Recordings albums. Solidest (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment, the article name is Riverside Records. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Jazzland seems to be a sublabel of it. Riverside Records discography says it's subsidiary, Discogs says it's companion label. Solidest (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Acquired citizenship
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Acquired citizenship to Category:Change of nationality
- Nominator's rationale: Per previous discussions on "Naturalized citizens". Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reverse merge is actually a better option, per below comments. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, the precedents were Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 1#People with acquired citizenship or Naturalized citizens and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 9#Category:People with acquired citizenship. – Fayenatic London 12:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Manual reverse merge would be better, I think, because in some cases people become dual nationals without losing the first nationality – in which case they are acquiring rather than changing. Although "Change of nationality" is part of the name of the subcat Category:Change of nationality in sport, that name does not match its stated scope which is "Sportspeople who have represented more than one nation". – Fayenatic London 12:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reverse merge. You don't have to change your original nationality to acquire a new one. Many people have more than one nationality. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've tagged Category:Change of nationality.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comments
- Category:Acquisition and loss of nationality would be the most accurate name — not necessarily the best one
- There is a broader conflation in the category tree between Category:Nationality and its subcat Category:Citizenship. See Nationality section "Nationality versus citizenship" and table "List of nationalities which do not have full citizenship rights".
- The category should encompass BOTH gaining a new nationality AND losing an old one (Renunciation of citizenship and Category:Denaturalization). As others have said, "Change of nationality" is bad because it suggests a combination of gaining AND losing. OTOH "Acquired citizenship" is bad because it suggests ONLY gaining, NOT losing.
- subcat Category:Change of nationality in sport is not a true subcat. There are subnational and supernational "national" teams and there are sports where non-citizens can represent. It also seems to include things like the people who played for both Czechoslovakia and Slovakia.
Category:18th century in Mozambique
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: downmerge, redundant category layer, there isn't any content here that doesn't fall under Portuguese Mozambique. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fine with it, but can we leave this as a redirect to resolve the template from breaking? Mason (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose and reverse merge instead. What a mess Category:Years of the 20th century in Portuguese Mozambique is currently – half of the year subcats up to 1975 use "Portuguese" in the name, half don't. I prefer the solution at e.g. Category:20th century in Angola where everything is simply named "in Angola", but all years/decades/centuries up to 1975 are parented by Portuguese Empire. – Fayenatic London 21:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm surprised to see that Marcocapelle removed some content from Category:Portuguese Angola in 2021, e.g. Category:19th century in Angola, on the grounds that "category may also contain indigenous history".[5] IMHO that edit and any like it should be undone. But at least he still left that cat within Category:19th century in the Portuguese Empire. – Fayenatic London 21:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: Portuguese Angola and Portuguese Mozambique started off as just some coastal settlements and only late in the 19th century they expanded to what is currently Angola and Mozambique. The most extreme example is Mbunda Kingdom which was conquered by the Portuguese no earlier than 1917. It is comparable to Category:19th century in India which we should not want to be a subcategory of Category:British India. I think India is in principle a good example of how things should be done, except Angola and Mozambique only have a fraction of the number of articles of India. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I think I understand how you distinguish between those parents now. But I am not persuaded by the India hierarchy as a model rather than Angola. India also has sub-hierarchies for French, Dutch and Portuguese India. There is no such ambiguity between colonial powers for Mozambique.
- I saw that you put Category:1924 in Mozambique into Portuguese Mozambique parent categories, and nominated it at Speedy. If these two layers are the way to go then presumably we should do likewise for all the Category:Years of the 20th century in Portuguese Mozambique not currently called "Portuguese". I suggest leaving redirects.
- Ah. I've just found Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_5#Category:20th_century_in_Mozambique and 19th century just below it, which ended with consensus NOT to use "Portuguese". In those discussions you didn't !vote but questioned whether the "Portuguese" disambiguator was needed. Why should we go against that previous consensus and use "Portuguese" now? – Fayenatic London 21:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: in my defense, I found the Indian tree only after the above discussion. But more importantly, I have no issue with calling 20th-century categories just "Mozambique" instead of "Portuguese Mozambique" because they geograhically coincide in the 20th century. In addition, I would propose merging all 19th-century (sub)categories and earlier to just Category:History of Portuguese Mozambique, Category:Establishments in Portuguese Mozambique and Category:Disestablishments in Portuguese Mozambique, and to centuries, decades and years in Africa. That is of course, assuming that articles about events in centuries, decades and years refer to Portuguese Mozambique (to be checked). So we would end up with main categories Portuguese Mozambique, 20th century in Mozambique and 21st century in Mozambique (with some overlap between Portuguese and 20th century). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be (barely) justifiable to retain Category:18th century in Mozambique to hold 18th-century Mozambican people (2 P), 18th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Mozambique (1 P) and Old Cathedral of Quelimane. I would likewise keep 19th century in Mozambique.
- But the rest of your proposal sounds right, as the other C16–C19 hierarchy contents are Fort São Miguel de Chicova, Fort São Caetano, Igreja Presbiteriana de Moçambique, Diocese of Lebombo, and redirects Captaincy of Sofala, Captaincy of Mozambique and Sofala, Captaincy-General of Mozambique and Rivers of Sofala, Province of Mozambique. The only other potential contents I found are Portuguese expedition to Sofala (1505), Siege of Mozambique (1607), Siege of Mozambique (1608).
- Please can we start by undoing your recent parameterising of years in Mozambique into "Portuguese"? [6] – Fayenatic London 09:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I see that my request and this whole discussion becomes moot because of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_3#16th_to_19th_century_in_(Portuguese)_Mozambique. I suggest that that CFD should be closed before this one. – Fayenatic London 09:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: in my defense, I found the Indian tree only after the above discussion. But more importantly, I have no issue with calling 20th-century categories just "Mozambique" instead of "Portuguese Mozambique" because they geograhically coincide in the 20th century. In addition, I would propose merging all 19th-century (sub)categories and earlier to just Category:History of Portuguese Mozambique, Category:Establishments in Portuguese Mozambique and Category:Disestablishments in Portuguese Mozambique, and to centuries, decades and years in Africa. That is of course, assuming that articles about events in centuries, decades and years refer to Portuguese Mozambique (to be checked). So we would end up with main categories Portuguese Mozambique, 20th century in Mozambique and 21st century in Mozambique (with some overlap between Portuguese and 20th century). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: Portuguese Angola and Portuguese Mozambique started off as just some coastal settlements and only late in the 19th century they expanded to what is currently Angola and Mozambique. The most extreme example is Mbunda Kingdom which was conquered by the Portuguese no earlier than 1917. It is comparable to Category:19th century in India which we should not want to be a subcategory of Category:British India. I think India is in principle a good example of how things should be done, except Angola and Mozambique only have a fraction of the number of articles of India. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm surprised to see that Marcocapelle removed some content from Category:Portuguese Angola in 2021, e.g. Category:19th century in Angola, on the grounds that "category may also contain indigenous history".[5] IMHO that edit and any like it should be undone. But at least he still left that cat within Category:19th century in the Portuguese Empire. – Fayenatic London 21:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting pending Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 3#16th to 19th century in (Portuguese) Mozambique.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still pending
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:3rd century in Africa (Roman province)
[edit]- Propose deleting Category:3rd century in Africa (Roman province) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:4th century in Africa (Roman province) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:5th century in Africa (Roman province) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory each. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Rename all to ?? century in Roman Africa I populated these categories somewhat. However, in Diocletian's administrative reforms (sometime between 284–305 CE), Africa (Roman province) was split into Africa Zeugitana, Africa Byzacena, and Africa Tripolitania. In 314 CE, these provinces were grouped together along with almost all Roman provinces on the African continent in the Diocese of Africa. Thus there essentially was no Roman province named just "Africa" in the 3rd-5th centuries. With my rename proposal, I suggest the new category scope includes all Roman and Byzantine-controlled areas on the African continent. The people categories need to be renamed as well. Daask (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is still only 5 unique articles in 3 categories, then we'd better move the articles back and carry on with deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 23:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Rename per Daask; do not delete: Smallcat is best employed when there is no potential for expansion, but these categories have considerable potential for expansion, though they would be better renamed. While merging them is a possibility, that would risk reducing their utility as navigational aids. This may be an area of study that has been neglected on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of potential topics under these headings. As far as I know, Roman Africa flourished at least until the time of the Vandal invasion, which would be worthy of multiple topics itself; I believe Belisarius attempted to reclaim Africa from the Vandals, which would seem to merit a topic; and of course it was still inhabited at the time the Muslims swept across it on the way to Spain, and that is a topic or two as well. There may be some articles on Roman governors, petty kings, bishops and religious writers from the region. It makes little sense to delete these categories now only to recreate them under substantially identical names once more articles have been written or added, justifying splitting a bigger category again. P Aculeius (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: SMALLCAT is deprecated and should not be referencecs as an argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Rename per Daask. There is considerable scope for expansion here. Dimadick (talk) 09:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:National military histories by war
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: I find this name very confusing. I think, based on the contents, it would be better off as Military history by war and country, and the child categories could be renamed Vietnam War military history by country etc Mason (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support, agree with current name being confusing. The proposed target does not exactly describe what the category contains either. What about Category:Military history by country during wars? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Rename because of the confusion, but unsure about the proposed targets. Perhaps Category:Military history by country by war? This would introduce two specific criteria, enabling inclusion of subcategories like Category:Military history of the Soviet Union during World War II, and Category:Military history of Japan during World War II. But see additional comments below. PearlyGigs (talk) 08:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- See also this nomination. I think that ultimately we do not need this tree at all, at most we need a Category:Military history of the United States by war. But it will take a few iterations to achieve that. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fine with eventually getting rid of the category, so any rename is an improvement in the meantime. Mason (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: For clarity, are you supporting a rename to Category:Military history of the United States by war? HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- No that is just the ultimate goal, but we can't do it all it once. I just mean that it does not matter too much how the category is being renamed when it is ultimately going to disappear. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Next steps: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_13#Category:Korean_War_national_military_histories and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_13#Category:World_War_II_national_military_histories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've supported the proposed next steps and I agree the goal should be deletion of this category. Thanks for the ping, btw. PearlyGigs (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Next steps: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_13#Category:Korean_War_national_military_histories and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_13#Category:World_War_II_national_military_histories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- No that is just the ultimate goal, but we can't do it all it once. I just mean that it does not matter too much how the category is being renamed when it is ultimately going to disappear. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
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. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}{{subst:!}}{{PAGENAME:{{{class}}}{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{class{{subst:!}}}}}}}{{subst:!}}unassessed{{subst:!}}{{subst:!}}-Class}} {{{topic}}} articles}}{{subst:!}} {{subst:!}}[[Category:WikiProject assessment categories needing attention]] }}
- 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)
- Oh wait, Category:Template Category class with class parameter not matching title exists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Comment Are you going to tag all 333 categories in Category:WikiProject assessment categories needing attention? Liz Read! Talk! 01:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Liz: This nomination is only about the parent, not its subcategories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- The "manually tagged" ones were added because while this has now faded somewhat, last year in particular there was an absolute epidemic of people making hasty, half-baked "standardization" edits to wikiproject templates that had the side-effect of spewing out new redlinked wikiproject class and importance rating categories (sometimes even for wikiprojects that don't even do importance-rating at all) at an absolutely alarming rate — meaning that as a person who works to clean up categorization errors at Special:WantedCategories, for several weeks I was getting slapped in the face with dozens of those at a time on every new generation of that report.
They can't just stay red, which means they have to be either created or removed before the next generation of the report 72 hours later — but removing a template-generated category is impossible without either editing the template in ways that surpass my understanding of template-coding infrastructure, and thus likely breaking stuff, or totally reverting the changes that caused the redlinked category to exist in the first place, and thus being disruptive, so my only option was to create all of those categories myself. But creating a class or importance rating category is a more complex process than creating a mainspace category, especially in the cases where I would have had to create the entire importance-rating infrastructure from scratch (which I don't even know how to do), so it would have taken me weeks to do all the work myself — so especially given the sheer amount of crap I was having to deal with, my only realistic option was "do the absolute bare minimum necessary to make the category blue instead of red, and leave it in a place where the experts in wikiproject-rating categorization can fix it": namely, create a virtually blank category that doesn't contain all of the category-making code that a wikiproject assessment category should really contain, and then leave it in a "wikiproject categories that need to be fixed by people who actually know what they're doing" queue.
There's absolutely nothing on this category that says it's only for naming errors, and there are other kinds of attention that a wikiproject assessment category can need besides naming problems alone — so it makes sense to create the proposed category as a subcategory of this if desired, but it doesn't make sense to move the existing category to this since there can be other legitimate reasons for its use besides naming problems alone. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)- Why not automate the creation and labeling of these categories? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- That would have to be done by somebody who knows how to do that, wouldn't it? Said somebody would not be me, so while those should be automated I'm not the one who can do that. Bearcat (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Why not automate the creation and labeling of these categories? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)- I'm fine with splitting the incorrect names subcategory with the template-categorized system through Template:Category class and Template:Category importance, and leaving this category here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Hijacked journals
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. Proposal: listify, where it could be better sourced. Currently this content is not discussed in the eponym article, Hijacked journal, nor in most member artciles, e.g., Sylwan. fgnievinski (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep None of these are reasons for deletion. If it's not discussed in each article, it should be. That individuals are not discussed in the main eponimous article is irrelevant, because they shouldn't be. We mention the first known case, Archive des Sciences as an example, but there's no reason to mention the others. WP:NONDEF also does not apply because journals do not control if they are hijacked or not, but it's very much an important thing to know about a journal. And if you want to have a list, have a list, but that does not make the category irrelevant or useless. Also an important defense for WP:CITEWATCH. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, lots of things can be a "important thing to know" (for whom?) but that does not put WP:NONDEF aside. No objection to listification if someone volunteers for that. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- for whom? For the reader. If you stumble upon a citation to e.g. Sylwan, it's important to know that Sylwan was hijacked, and that you may not be looking at the real Sylwan but the fake one. Also, per WP:NONDEF
- a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject.
- We have multiple reliable sources describing these journals as hijacked
- if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead section of an article (determined without regard to whether it is mentioned in the lead), it is probably not defining;
- If it's not mentioned in the lead, it should be.
- if the characteristic falls within any of the forms of overcategorization mentioned on this page, it is probably not defining.
- It doesn't fall into any of them.
- Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Which sources define them as "a hijacked journal"? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- See Beall's list, Retraction Watch, ScholarlyOA (before it was itself hijacked), Walailak Journal, Nature, etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Those are sources about the topic of hijacking. The question is about sources about the subjects in the category. Please read WP:NONDEF carefully. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Every one of those sources identify specific journals being hijacked, and how they were hijacked. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- You're missing the gist of NONDEF, so I'll quote:
- A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place.
- It goes on to say:
- if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead section of an article (determined without regard to whether it is mentioned in the lead), it is probably not defining;
- No Wikipedia article about a hijacked journal start (or should start) saying "Journal X is a hijacked journal". They just happen to be a victim of a scam. Granted, it's nice to know, but it needs to be sourced; a list would be the best place to cite sources, which is not technically possible in a mere category membership. fgnievinski (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- No Wikipedia article about a hijacked journal start (or should start) saying "Journal X is a hijacked journal". No, but the lead could (and I would argue, should) end with "The journal was hijacked by <organization>, with a fake website at <fakeurldomain>, and the legitimate site hosted at <realurldomain>".[source]" This is absolutely critical information because otherwise someone looking for e.g. Wulfenia could well end up checking the scam version rather than the legit version. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- You're missing the gist of NONDEF, so I'll quote:
- Every one of those sources identify specific journals being hijacked, and how they were hijacked. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Those are sources about the topic of hijacking. The question is about sources about the subjects in the category. Please read WP:NONDEF carefully. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- See Beall's list, Retraction Watch, ScholarlyOA (before it was itself hijacked), Walailak Journal, Nature, etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Which sources define them as "a hijacked journal"? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Per Headbomb's convincing arguments. If a journal is hijacked, that most certainly is a defining characteristic. --Randykitty (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Lean rename. Is there a better name than this? Like predatory? Mason (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Members of the Fourth Aliyah
[edit]- Propose dispersing
Category:Members of the Fourth AliyahCategory:Immigrants of the Fourth Aliyah to the tree of Category:Immigrants to Mandatory Palestine
- Propose dispersing
- Nominator's rationale: disperse, period of 1924-1929 is arbitrary and we have diffused these migrants already by country of origin. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, Marco. That’s not going to happen. This is a category specific to the period of the Fourth Aliyah, which was 5 years. We do not want to merge it into a 20 year period of immigration. Dag21902190 (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Propose merging
Category:Members of the First AliyahCategory:Immigrants of the First Aliyah to Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine - Propose merging
Category:Members of the Second AliyahCategory:Immigrants of the Second Aliyah to Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine to Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine - Propose dispersing
Category:Members of the Third AliyahCategory:Immigrants of the Third Aliyah to Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine to Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine and the tree of Category:Immigrants to Mandatory Palestine - Propose dispersing
Category:Members of the Fifth AliyahCategory:Immigrants of the Fifth Aliyah to Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine to the tree of Category:Immigrants to Mandatory Palestine
- I have added the siblings too, they are based on equally arbitrary periods. If not merged, then at least rename "members" to "migrants" or something like that. It does not concern membership of an organization. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Merge/disperse per Marco's second proposal. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- These are not arbitrary periods, you are flexing your ignorance of Israeli history.
- Furthermore, believe it or not, definition of a “member” is “one of the individuals of a group”. The group of individuals who migrated to the Land of Israel during each Aliyah was a “member” of that respective Aliyah. They have been referred to as members of their respective Aliyot since the founding of the state.
- if you want to change the word “member” for “migrant”, you will have to figure out how to change that on each person’s page. But your statement that “member” only refers to the “member of an organization”, is not true. It is your perspective of the word, but not reality.
- I will note that the time you have dedicated to coming after these unique categories, and attempting to disperse them into the ether, piques my interest. You have spent hours attacking Israeli categories and pages, wasting time that could have been used being productive.
- We will not be doing anything to the categories, as that would be denying the reality of each unique Aliyah.
- I’m starting to have serious questions about the moderators of this platform. Everything Israel-related gets attacked non-stop (in an organized fashion), by people like you, who don’t even know what the Aliyot were! Making claims that each Aliyah is an arbitrary time-period is a blatant lie, and your privileges should be investigated. This is bizarre. Dag21902190 (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Furthermore, I find it absolutely fascinating that you nominated the first five Aliyot for dispersal, but left out the Aliyah Bet category. Is it because Aliyah Bet was illegal immigration, and doesn’t make the Jews look good? So you wanted to disperse one through five, and keep just the illegal immigration?
- This entire nomination should be ignored, and the bias you’ve shown by nominating it should come back and bite you. Dag21902190 (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- 1st. Category:Aliyah Bet does not contain immigrants, it is a topic category. So that is something completely different. 2nd. Every of these Aliyahs is not a single group, they concern a process of several years with many separate groups and individuals. Group membership is therefore completely inapplicable here. 3rd. Please stop with personal attacks. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- I’m not sure what you don’t understand, and the reason you keep doubling down on a subject you know nothing about is beyond me. Each Aliyah had its own unique movement. The facilitators of those Aliyot knew that they were facilitating the first, second, third, fourth, fifth Aliyah, and then Aliyah Bet. These categories organize the early Zionist immigrants to the land of Israel by the specific Aliyah movements that facilitated their immigration. To deny the benefits of these categories, and continue to gaslight me, is just a disingenuous tactic. I frankly consider the mass nominations of my categories for” deletion” and “merging” as vandalism, and an overreach of your privileges. You are not a victim here, you are the attacker. Dag21902190 (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Only now I notice that you have created Category:Members of Aliyah Bet too. I will nominate this category as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- 1st. Category:Aliyah Bet does not contain immigrants, it is a topic category. So that is something completely different. 2nd. Every of these Aliyahs is not a single group, they concern a process of several years with many separate groups and individuals. Group membership is therefore completely inapplicable here. 3rd. Please stop with personal attacks. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Propose dispersing Category:Members of Aliyah Bet to the tree of Category:Immigrants to Mandatory Palestine
- Comment Categories were prematurely emptied by the nominator. Dag21902190. This should have waited until this discussion concluded. Liz Read! Talk! 01:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Liz: not by nominator, but by creator of these categories. They have manually moved the articles from "Members" to "Immigrants". That is a waste of effort because the move could have done by a bot if there was consensus for it. I have updated the proposal accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- You should be investigated by Wikipedia for overreach of your editing privileges. You are stalking my page, attempting to merge all of my work into broader categories that don’t differentiate between Aliyot, (which is the entire point of these categories). This is the 12th category of mine that you have vandalized with some sort of banner, and for no good reason other than it relates to Israel. You didn’t like the word “member”, so I changed it to ”immigrant”. Now you’re making a blatantly false claim that each Aliyah is an arbitrary time period. It doesn’t matter to you if you revise history, as long as you prevent a compartmentalized gold-mine of information, like these categories, from existing. You are working hard to prevent any sort of organization that makes it easy to research the early history of Israel. Dag21902190 (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing happened in 1924 that requires a category split for immigrants. It was simply a continuous inflow of immigrants. In addition, my proposal is not preventing anything because all articles will stay in Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine and Category:Immigrants to Mandatory Palestine. Finally these are no longer "your" categories, as soon as you create them they become Wikipedia's. See also WP:OWN. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Incorrect, please do more research. Case in point would be that nearly half of the 2nd Aliyah immigrants returned to their countries of origin, while the vast majority of immigrants of the 3rd Aliyah stayed in Israel. They were two separate waves, with totally different results Dag21902190 (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I can't see how that matters. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Incorrect, please do more research. Case in point would be that nearly half of the 2nd Aliyah immigrants returned to their countries of origin, while the vast majority of immigrants of the 3rd Aliyah stayed in Israel. They were two separate waves, with totally different results Dag21902190 (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing happened in 1924 that requires a category split for immigrants. It was simply a continuous inflow of immigrants. In addition, my proposal is not preventing anything because all articles will stay in Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine and Category:Immigrants to Mandatory Palestine. Finally these are no longer "your" categories, as soon as you create them they become Wikipedia's. See also WP:OWN. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- You should be investigated by Wikipedia for overreach of your editing privileges. You are stalking my page, attempting to merge all of my work into broader categories that don’t differentiate between Aliyot, (which is the entire point of these categories). This is the 12th category of mine that you have vandalized with some sort of banner, and for no good reason other than it relates to Israel. You didn’t like the word “member”, so I changed it to ”immigrant”. Now you’re making a blatantly false claim that each Aliyah is an arbitrary time period. It doesn’t matter to you if you revise history, as long as you prevent a compartmentalized gold-mine of information, like these categories, from existing. You are working hard to prevent any sort of organization that makes it easy to research the early history of Israel. Dag21902190 (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, Marcocapelle, I saw the comment they inserted in your nomination and thought they were the nominator. What is going to happen with all of these "Member" categories that are now empty? Will they be turned into redirects if this proposal goes through? Liz Read! Talk! 20:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Liz: I can imagine your confusion about what happened. If nothing else happens these categories will become eligible for deletion as empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Liz: not by nominator, but by creator of these categories. They have manually moved the articles from "Members" to "Immigrants". That is a waste of effort because the move could have done by a bot if there was consensus for it. I have updated the proposal accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep. I don't see a convincing argument to disperse. Marco points out 5 year periods are arbitrary, but so are centuries. If, as Dag states, there exists a mode of reference that divides the immigrants into 5 periods, and someone may reasonably be taking advantage of that division to differentiate between 2 immigrants from different periods, I don't see any reason to disperse. If Dag just invented this division himself I would agree, but my impression is that this isn't the case. JoeJShmo💌 23:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)not extended confirmed HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep I'm not confident they can be dismissed as arbitrary periods - insofar that distinct push and pull factors during the different periods makes each wave have its own characteristics - but even if arbitrary periods of early immigration, they are well recognised as distinct periods (at least within Jewish scholarship). Culturally, also, the Israeli concept of "returning home" as part of an Aliyah is distinct from immigration. For these reasons, the people who were part of such migration would most likely identify it with the X Aliyah name, not as anything else. So as long as there is a good source saying that an individual moving to (insert era) Palestine did so as part of an Aliyah, I believe it is a valid identifying category. My one is concern, though, that people who may have migrated and aren’t identified as part of an Aliyah may be added to these categories based on timespan alone; manual sorting could be required which (I know from experience) is exhaustive and nigh-impossible. For simplicity and not being technically untrue, I wouldn’t staunchly object to the merge proposals as laid out. Kingsif (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Kaguya-hime
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Kaguya-hime to Category:Works based on The Tale of the Bamboo Cutter
- Nominator's rationale: All articles in the category are adaptations. Also the category title should use the current title of the main article. Mika1h (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:People by era in Rivers State
[edit]- Propose merging Category:People by era in Rivers State to Category:People from Rivers State
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This is a redundant category layer Mason (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. The subcategory may be upmerged too. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:User talk archives
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Unknowing recreation, in 2016, of a category created in 2006 which was deleted at CfD in 2008. Same rationale applies now as in the nomination back then - it's not useful for navigation or collaboration to group disparate user talk archives. — Scott • talk 12:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Comedy video games
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: As per Comedy in video games there is no proof that a "comedy video game" genre actually exists, and while there are categories for "parody" or "satire", that is more self-evident. Comedy comes in numerous forms, making the separation between comedic and non-comedic unclear (I could call Garry's Mod a "comedy" game even if it is all unintentional). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. What about licensed video game adaptations of comedy movies and shows? Category:Parody video games and Category:Satirical video games have significant overlap with this category, I'd argue many of the games listed here could be categorized as comedy games, what makes these subcategories more legit than the parent category? AHI-3000 (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Parody and satire might actually merit a merge into each other, but they are indicative of a clear attempt to mock the original source material which is quickly evident. McPixel is obviously a parody of MacGuyver. Meanwhile, comedic video games are rarely classified as such. I don't see anyone calling Drakengard 3 a comedy game despite in my experience being heavily humorous, people classify it as an action game. Comedy and parody/satire are not the same. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. What about licensed video game adaptations of comedy movies and shows? Category:Parody video games and Category:Satirical video games have significant overlap with this category, I'd argue many of the games listed here could be categorized as comedy games, what makes these subcategories more legit than the parent category? AHI-3000 (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per previous category deletion in 2017 after a similar discussion. No such genre is discussed in reliable, secondary sources as associated with these entries and makes for blurry inclusion criteria. The "subcategories" do not require this parent category. czar 12:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Do any "reliable sources" claim that there's evidence of a Parody or Satire genre for video games either? How are these terms any less subjective or more objective than for Comedy games? AHI-3000 (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Dimadick: What do you think of this? AHI-3000 (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I seriously have no idea whether there are comedic video games. I am not familiar with sources on this topic. Dimadick (talk) 08:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Dimadick: What do you think of this? AHI-3000 (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Do any "reliable sources" claim that there's evidence of a Parody or Satire genre for video games either? How are these terms any less subjective or more objective than for Comedy games? AHI-3000 (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Google search for "comedy video games".
- Not sure how many of these websites are considered to be reliable sources according to Wikipedia policies, but for what it's worth there does seem to be a belief that Comedy exists as a narrative genre for video games, akin to Horror, Fantasy or Science Fiction.
- Also, please take a look at the "Comedy video games" category. Admittedly, most of the subcategories are for licensed adaptations of various film and TV franchises which everyone agrees are primarily comedic by nature. Games based on comedy movies and shows tend to also be comedic and heavily focused on humor.
- And another thing to consider is that there are non-adaptational video game franchises that are known for having a mostly comedic tone. Some notable examples are Borderlands, Destroy All Humans!, Monkey Island, Ratchet & Clank, and Saints Row. And I'm quite certain that there are countless reliable sources which describe these games' focus on humor and satire.
- AHI-3000 (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Russian Orthodox Church, Baku diocese
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one article and one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Churches under the Baku diocese
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: rename to align with Category:Russian Orthodox churches by country. Note that the territory of the Diocese of Baku and Azerbaijan coincides with the country of Azerbaijan. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Video game franchises by narrative genre
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: QuantumFoam66 (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, this is clearly a subcategory of Category:Video games by narrative genre, why would you suggest an unrelated name? AHI-3000 (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Both current names are not exactly stating what the categories contain. They are about video games by series, not about franchises. It should rather become something like "Video games by (narrative) genre and series". Alternatively, the narrative category may also be upmerged, it does not make too much sense to ghettoize the three genres that are in it. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that the supercategory name should have "series" instead of "franchises" in it to reflect the naming pattern of the subcategories. AHI-3000 (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, however I do not like these new "video game franchises by narrative genre". They really just feel like overcategorization despite dividing categories in a proper way (and if so, we'll merge it back with Video games by theme). The creator will probably not agree with me, but I hope some others will, and we'll discuss all these categories later. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Video game series by narrative genre, per AHI-3000. I think many of the surrounding categories, such as Category:Video game franchises by genre, should be renamed similarly. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Fajemirokun family
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. There are only two people in this family, which could be interlinked if it was clear how they were related. Mason (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:NBC LX Home affiliates
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: No longer available OTA but still streaming; these stations have/will start airing a new diginet, NBC American Crimes (no article yet) Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Nintendo controversies
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: This category is terrible, for several reasons:
- Contains a bunch of loosely unrelated content, only defined by "being related to Nintendo", even some that Nintendo, the video game company, was not even in involved in, such as the Burger King one, as well as the other Pokémon ones, especially the ones about the anime.
- The category already overlaps with other Controversies categories.
- We could start a new category to divide the Pokémon controversies, but we cannot, we currently do not have any categories for controversies over a specific media franchise, and in turn never should.
If we delete this category, we will need undo some of Blakegripling_ph's edits for which he changed.
Also, if you insist on retaining this category by making a similar category like "Works taken down by Nintendo", we don't, because information on this topic should better be located in the article "Intellectual property protection by Nintendo". QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Purge and merge, after purging games and characters there are three articles and a subcategory left that are truly about a controversy. These may be manually merged to Category:Video game controversies and Category:Nintendo insofar the articles aren't already in these trees. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Good point, bad news though: the parent categories "Video game controversies" and "Nintedo" would not fit in that article about Burger King Toys. Nintendo, the video game company, was not involved in it, neither is it a controversy over a video game, or a controversy at all. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ok that is also fine. Thanks for the notification. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Good point, bad news though: the parent categories "Video game controversies" and "Nintedo" would not fit in that article about Burger King Toys. Nintendo, the video game company, was not involved in it, neither is it a controversy over a video game, or a controversy at all. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Purge and merge per Marcocapelle. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
July 16
[edit]Category:Royal National Institute for the Blind alumni
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: This is a charity which, as far as I can tell, supports blind people but isn't a school. In any case, there is only one article in here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, just one article in the category is not helpful for navigation. The charity seems to run a school though. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ah alright. That makes sense. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Irish blind musicians
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Irish blind musicians to Category:Blind musicians and Category:Irish blind people
- Propose merging Category:Irish blind harpists to Category:Irish blind musicians
- Nominator's rationale: Only nationality category in Category:Blind musicians. Seems like an unnecessary intersection between nationality, musicians, and disability. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Lean Oppose. I agree that the 3x intersection isn't really defining (although there is a section decided to Irish blind musicians Blind musicians#Traditional Irish musicians). However, the parent category is large enough to be diffused by nationality.Mason (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Survivors of the attempted assassination of Donald Trump
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NOTDEFINING. I don't see how being a survivor of this particular shooting is a defining characteristic of these individuals, as they were all notable prior to the shooting taking place. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 04:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. NotAGenious (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Agree per the nomination and would like to add that the category sounds to me like these people survived getting shot rather than having been present at the event, so if this is kept, I would modify the category to something clearer like "People present at the attempted assassination of Donald Trump". Upjav (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I don't know what the creator of the category was thinking. Super Ψ Dro 09:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. However, the category creator might just not know how categories work. Mason (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- I know how categories work, just thought survivors don't have to be injured, Move to something like "People present at the attempted assassination of Donald Trump" per Upjav. - Sebbog13 (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. However, the category creator might just not know how categories work. Mason (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Wander Over Yonder
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Only contains two articles. No good merge targets. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, the articles are already directly interlinked. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
History of Brussels by period
[edit]- Propose deleting Category:Austrian Brussels
- Propose deleting Category:Dutch Brussels
- Propose deleting Category:French Brussels
- Propose deleting Category:Habsburg Brussels
- Propose deleting Category:Reginar Brussels
- Propose deleting Category:Spanish Brussels
- Nominator's rationale: delete, this part of the history of Brussels tree overlaps entirely with Category:Centuries in Brussels, furthermore it is highly inaccurate. For example the Dutch period lasted only from 1815 to 1830 but the whole 19th century has been put under it. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Quota reform protest in Bangladesh
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Same category. Mehedi Abedin 06:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Villains in mythology and legend
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: As far as I know, "villain" is usually used in a literary context. We typically use "evil" to describe malevolent gods and there is already such a category called Category:Evil deities, making this redundant and pointless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. This category is not restricted to gods or goddesses. This is supposed to be a counterpart to Category:Heroes in mythology and legend, and just as there are plenty of folklore heroes, there are folklore villains too. AHI-3000 (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support, demons are deities too (deities is broader than just gods and goddesses) and that leaves only one article in the category. That article illustrates nicely how difficult it is to classify a character as villain. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that demons are typically classified as being "deities" or "gods". Deities and demons can both be spirits though. AHI-3000 (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Dimadick: What do you think of this? AHI-3000 (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, in folklore there are several folk devils that can be covered. Dimadick (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that demons are typically classified as being "deities" or "gods". Deities and demons can both be spirits though. AHI-3000 (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Decades in the Colony of Virginia
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Decades in the Colony of Virginia to Category:Decades in Virginia
- Nominator's rationale: Redundant categoey lay Mason (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- It could be populated and turned into a subcategory of Category:Colony of Virginia. Most of all, parent Category:History of the Colony of Virginia is redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose and add all relevant decade categories (1600s to 1770s). The Colony of Virginia and Virginia are not the same entity and should not be mixed up in the same category just because they have a similar them. The issue is with the year categories that aren't correctly named and thus the template {{YYY0s in one of the Thirteen Colonies}} isn't auto-populating these categories. Gonnym (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- See Category:Decades in the Massachusetts Bay Colony for how this should be correctly handled. Gonnym (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose and add all relevant decade categories (1600s to 1770s). The Colony of Virginia and Virginia are not the same entity and should not be mixed up in the same category just because they have a similar them. The issue is with the year categories that aren't correctly named and thus the template {{YYY0s in one of the Thirteen Colonies}} isn't auto-populating these categories. Gonnym (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Current roller hockey seasons
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Empty and not enough possible articles to justify it as a subcat to "current sporting seasons". Pelmeen10 (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Pelmeen10: if you found it empty then you could have tagged it as empty. If you emptied the category yourself then please mention what you removed. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- It was empty, I have no clue when was it last populated. Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Boxing matches at Madison Square Garden
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Boxing matches at Madison Square Garden to Category:Boxing matches in New York City and Category:Sports competitions in Manhattan
- Propose merging Category:Boxing matches at Boardwalk Hall to Category:Boxing matches in Atlantic City, New Jersey
- Propose merging Category:Boxing matches at Caesars Palace to Category:Boxing matches in the Las Vegas Valley
- Propose merging Category:Boxing matches at the Las Vegas Hilton to Category:Boxing matches in the Las Vegas Valley
- Propose merging Category:Boxing matches at Manchester Arena to Category:Boxing matches in Manchester
- Propose merging Category:Boxing matches at Mandalay Bay Events Center to Category:Boxing matches in the Las Vegas Valley
- Propose merging Category:Boxing matches at MGM Grand Garden Arena to Category:Boxing matches in the Las Vegas Valley
- Propose merging Category:Boxing matches at Staples Center to Category:Boxing matches in Los Angeles
- Propose merging Category:Boxing matches at Caesars Palace to Category:Boxing matches in the Las Vegas Valley
- Propose merging Category:Boxing matches at T-Mobile Arena to Category:Boxing matches in the Las Vegas Valley and Category:Sports competitions in Paradise, Nevada
- Propose merging Category:Boxing matches at Thomas & Mack Center to Category:Boxing matches in the Las Vegas Valley
- Propose merging Category:Boxing matches at The O2 Arena to Category:Boxing matches in London
- Propose merging Category:Boxing matches at Wembley Stadium to Category:Boxing matches in London
.:* Propose merging Category:Boxing matches at Wembley Arena to Category:Boxing matches in London
- Nominator's rationale: Per the recent discussion and WP:OCVENUE. User:Namiba 16:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose Removing these Categories will severely overpopulate the populated place pages User:Sam11333 16:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- The only one to which that might apply is the Las Vegas Valley and even that won't be massive.--User:Namiba 16:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think there is any doubt on that one!
- I can't see the logic in removing the venue categories, given that WP:OCVENUE states that "categories that indicate how a specific facility is regularly used in a specific and notable way" can be appropriate. I would argue that a boxing match falls under that description. Sam11333 (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Including these arenas in the boxing venues category is fine. But OCVENUE and the recent consensus I've cited is very clear "avoid categorizing events by their hosting locations".--User:Namiba
- Tagging editors who commented on the most recent discussion User:Marcocapelle, User:Omnis Scientia, User:Epicgenius, User:Flibirigit.--User:Namiba 19:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Including these arenas in the boxing venues category is fine. But OCVENUE and the recent consensus I've cited is very clear "avoid categorizing events by their hosting locations".--User:Namiba
- The only one to which that might apply is the Las Vegas Valley and even that won't be massive.--User:Namiba 16:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose Removing these Categories will severely overpopulate the populated place pages User:Sam11333 16:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge, the guideline is clear about this and the category isn't like Category:NBA venues for which is an exception is being made. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would argue that Boxing matches are inherently more notable as events than sports where the same teams play each other very year. Sam11333 (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- No one is arguing that boxing matches should not have articles.--User:Namiba 12:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would argue that Boxing matches are inherently more notable as events than sports where the same teams play each other very year. Sam11333 (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per comments at the previous CfD for two of these categories. The guideline has no rational basis. Venue is a perfectly logical way to diffuse categories of boxing matches by city, just as categories of boxing matches by state and country are diffused into cities. Toohool (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Constitutionalism
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Constitutionalism to Category:Constitutional law
- Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. The category creator really needs to slow down with the creation of narrow/non-defining categories. Mason (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge or delete per nom. I am not sure of the merge target, hence deletion may be an option too. I added links between the two articles in the "See also" sections. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)- I'm fine with deletion. (I struggled to pick a merge target. But I try to always at least propose one)Mason (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Counts of Geneva
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: delete, the category consists of two very different sets of medieval ruling counts of Geneva, who are already in Category:House of Geneva and for early modern members of the House of Savoy for whom this was merely an empty title. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I don't believe the above summary to be quite right. Several members of the house of Savoy enjoyed practical control over the county and they are not going to be recorded in 'house of Geneva'. There is also the house of Thoire that controlled the county briefly in the late medieval period who presently lack articles but would be members of the category if they didn't. Moreover even after the city of Geneva slipped from their grasp (they maintained control of other parts of the county such as Annecy) the county remained prominent among their titulary (several of the sons of the dukes of Nemours were called the prince de Genevois until the death of their fathers) and is featured in the leading sentences of many of the articles. sovietblobfish (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I do agree some form of re-allocation needs to happen from Jacques on down. Especially given the county was raised to a duchy by the duke of Savoy in 1564. Perhaps they should be migrated to a category called something like 'Prince de Genevois' or 'Prince of the Genevois'. sovietblobfish (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Of course members of the house of Savoy enjoyed practical control over the county because it was part of the Savoyard state and the rulers of the latter were the ones enjoying practical control. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- At times yes, however the county (-1564 duchy) was under the authority of the cadet branch Savoie-Nemours for the majority of the 16th century and parts of the 17th century, and they were primarily French princes.
- Irrespective of whether they or the dukes of Savoy enjoyed practical control, this surely challenges the notion that it was an 'empty title' and it is therefore meaningful to keep it. sovietblobfish (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Of course members of the house of Savoy enjoyed practical control over the county because it was part of the Savoyard state and the rulers of the latter were the ones enjoying practical control. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I do agree some form of re-allocation needs to happen from Jacques on down. Especially given the county was raised to a duchy by the duke of Savoy in 1564. Perhaps they should be migrated to a category called something like 'Prince de Genevois' or 'Prince of the Genevois'. sovietblobfish (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I don't believe the above summary to be quite right. Several members of the house of Savoy enjoyed practical control over the county and they are not going to be recorded in 'house of Geneva'. There is also the house of Thoire that controlled the county briefly in the late medieval period who presently lack articles but would be members of the category if they didn't. Moreover even after the city of Geneva slipped from their grasp (they maintained control of other parts of the county such as Annecy) the county remained prominent among their titulary (several of the sons of the dukes of Nemours were called the prince de Genevois until the death of their fathers) and is featured in the leading sentences of many of the articles. sovietblobfish (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Bedouin businesspeople
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Bedouin businesspeople to Category:Arab businesspeople
- Nominator's rationale: Not necessary to subcategorize the target category this way. Also contains only 2 articles. Gjs238 (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just delete, the articles are already in Category:Egyptian businesspeople and Category:Syrian businesspeople, which should suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per Marco. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't there some benefit to categorising by ethnicity and nationality? Anecdotally, every Bedouin I've ever met would say that they're a Bedouin first and their nationality second. – Joe (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- merge I will nominate Category:Arab businesspeople shortly because it conflates ethnicity and nationality, like so many similar categories that have been brought to CfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Does it conflate them or just set up a parallel scheme for ethnicity, i.e. Category:Businesspeople by ethnicity? Do you also object to Category:African-American businesspeople and Category:Jewish businesspeople? – Joe (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Jewish businesspeople is a recreation of a previously deleted category, so it is at least controversial. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- But it exists now. And Nyttend recently declined a CSD nom with this enlightening edit summary:
We're no longer in the same situation as before — the recent "keep" for Jews by occupation (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 26) means that there's recent support for categories of this type, and speedy-deleting just this one would be absurd
. I don't have a dog in this fight, but wouldn't it make sense to establish a consensus for or against categories by ethnicity, rather than seeking to delete individual ones here and there? – Joe (talk) 11:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- But it exists now. And Nyttend recently declined a CSD nom with this enlightening edit summary:
- Category:Jewish businesspeople is a recreation of a previously deleted category, so it is at least controversial. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Does it conflate them or just set up a parallel scheme for ethnicity, i.e. Category:Businesspeople by ethnicity? Do you also object to Category:African-American businesspeople and Category:Jewish businesspeople? – Joe (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Retain I can list quite a few reasons for this: Bedouins have a distinct cultural, historical, and social identity within the Arab world. Merging their category into a general "Arab businesspeople" category could be seen as diluting the unique aspects of their cultural heritage. A specific category helps represent their unique challenges and contributions which might not be adequately covered. The Bedouin community has a history of nomadic trade and business practices that differ significantly from other Arab groups. A specific category preserves this historical context. Bedouins have distinct social structures and community dynamics that influence their business practices. Specific business strategies, success stories and challenges faced by Bedouin businesspeople can be studied with the help of a dedicated category. For cultural studies research, having a specific category can help in drawing more nuanced conclusions about the Bedouin way of life and their integration into modern economies. Furthermore, Wikipedia claims to be an inclusive platform representing diverse perspectives and communities. This category aligns with the principle of giving minority groups adequate representation. Merging the category marginalizes the Bedouin community within the larger Arab context.--Simxaraba (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- None of this addresses the small size of the category, and this is just WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- There are several more businessmen that are notable enough to be written about. Just because the category is small at the moment doesn't mean there aren't more. Simxaraba (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- None of this addresses the small size of the category, and this is just WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge? Delete? Keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge
- Category:Bedouins not subcategorized by occupation
- Category:Arab businesspeople not subcategorized by ethnic group
Gjs238 (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Brainwashing theory proponents
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Brainwashing theory proponents to Category:Mind control theorists
- Nominator's rationale: Whatever the difference is supposed to be between these two categories is beyond me. As far as I can tell, both categories are about people notable for writing works promoting the legitimacy of the sociological concept of brainwashing/mind control (which are more or less the same thing). This just seems like a slightly less neutral version of the other category made by a banned sock. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just delete, the articles are already in Category:Researchers of new religious movements and cults and that is exactly where they belong. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle I disagree with this, because brainwashing is actually a sociological debate, not strictly related to cults, that had quite a lot of scientific input. Like half the people in the mind control category have no relation to NRMs/cults at all. Brainwashing as a concept has been discussed in relation to politics, kidnapping (see Patty Hearst), etc. It is its own thing: while it is often brought up in relation to cults that's not its only relevance. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Possibly, but the articles in the nominated category are about researchers of new religious movements and cults. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle They're also primarily notable for brainwashing in a NRM context so I think it should be upmerged. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
The articles do not mention that they are a mind control theorist so I think you are applying WP:SYNTH.Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)- @Marcocapelle Of the 7 people in the to-be-merged category,
- 1) Abgrall is noted as being a brainwashing theorist
- 2) Clark’s article is a stub that doesn’t say much of anything
- 3) Eichel’s article prominently mentions him presenting theories of brainwashing and mindcontrol
- 4) Hassan’s article prominently mentions his theories of mind control
- 5) Lalich’s article discusses her “coercive control” theories (also a synonym for mind control)
- 6) Langone discusses his theories of mind control/coercive control as it relates to cults
- 7) Singer’s article declares her notable primary for advancing theories of brainwashing
- At least 6 out of the 7 with the other being a stub without proper context.
- Mind control and brainwashing are the same thing (and our brainwashing page was at mind control until a few years ago) PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I may have jumped to conclusions too quickly. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- lol don't worry it's fine PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I may have jumped to conclusions too quickly. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle They're also primarily notable for brainwashing in a NRM context so I think it should be upmerged. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Possibly, but the articles in the nominated category are about researchers of new religious movements and cults. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle I disagree with this, because brainwashing is actually a sociological debate, not strictly related to cults, that had quite a lot of scientific input. Like half the people in the mind control category have no relation to NRMs/cults at all. Brainwashing as a concept has been discussed in relation to politics, kidnapping (see Patty Hearst), etc. It is its own thing: while it is often brought up in relation to cults that's not its only relevance. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Video games with expansion packs
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Last year, on May 7, 2023. A similar category "Video games with downloadable content" was deleted, and expansion packs are pretty much the same as downloadable content. In turn, this category is probably non-defining. Expansion packs are as common as DLC, and are essentially the same. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I'd agree with the nominator - having an expansion pack does not always modify the base game, so it's hard to call it a defining feature. Categories should be defining aspects of the subject, not something tangential. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose because there are several other potentially non defining categories like "Video games with alternate versions" that I would have put under discussion in the same nomination or whatever. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- That is not a reason to oppose.
Just discuss with nominator whether the other categories should be included in this nomination or elseyou can nominate them separately, then you can support both nominations. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)- Striking half of my comment because I did not realize that the oppose was from nominator themselves. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- That is not a reason to oppose.
- Oppose because there are several other potentially non defining categories like "Video games with alternate versions" that I would have put under discussion in the same nomination or whatever. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am going to note that nom is QuantumFoam66.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Palestinian bedouins
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Palestinian bedouins to Category:Bedouins in the State of Palestine
- Nominator's rationale: Effectively redundant. Will require manual addition of parent categories to the target, for it is a downmerge. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom, but purge Al-Hamra, Baysan which is about a village that was depopulated in 1948. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- What about Bedouins that originate in Palestine but now live in Israel (such as the Negev Bedouin) or Jordan? Category:Palestinian bedouins seems the broader category and therefore the better merge target. It also corresponds to an article, Palestinian Bedouin. – Joe (talk) 06:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Joe's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Negev Bedouin is in Category:Bedouins in Israel so I can't see this as a good argument against the rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- It should be in both, since the area was formerly part of Palestine. – Joe (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:19th-century feminists
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: There is no need to have an intersection between political orientation and century. Mason (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support, I presume that early feminists are mostly in Category:Suffragists or belong there. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Feminist ideologies have evolved significantly across different centuries; therefore, the intersection between feminism and century is crucial. - The9Man (Talk) 07:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- But how is the century*ideology defining at the intersection ? Are people defined by being 19th-century feminists? This is the only category by century. I think an alternative name could be viable, but I don't see how this underpopulated category Category:19th-century feminists (9) is helpful.Mason (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
July 15
[edit]Category:Video game fandom
[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: keep. Totally withdrawn by nominator, no opposition. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category is redundant, we already have "Video game culture" with already covers the video game subculture, comprising all the fans. This category is actually pointless, so it can merged with that category or just deleted. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Retain. "Fandom" (i.e., what fans band together to do) seems to me as a pretty clear subset of the much broader "culture". The articles in this subcategory would be lost in the larger category whereas they form a distinct group when split out. czar 02:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. I did not even figure this through, so let's not delete it. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- @QuantumFoam66: well please do so next time before you start a discussion. See also WP:BEFORE which is not literally applicable to categories, but the message of it is 'do your homework first'. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. I did not even figure this through, so let's not delete it. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:1370 in Brussels
[edit]- Propose merging Category:1370 in Brussels to Category:History of Brussels and Category:1370 in Europe
- Propose merging Category:1511 in Brussels to Category:History of Brussels and Category:1511 in Europe
- Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated single-article categories, not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Fictional puppets
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Fictional puppets to Category:Fictional dolls and dummies
- Nominator's rationale: Created by a blocked disruptive user. When the category is purged of all irrelevant pages that are not about individual characters or objects, there are not enough articles to support such a specific category. Per WP:OVERLAPCAT it should be merged to the parent. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge, puppets are apparently handled by a puppeteer and this category does not contain a lot of that. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Pet insurance
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Pet insurance to Category:Pet insurance companies
- Nominator's rationale: Four out of five entries are insurance companies/providers, and the fifth is the main topic. I don't see anything else that would be worth including here, so I figure refiguring the scope of the cat, moving it to Category:Insurance companies, upmerging said main topic to Category:Types of insurance, and including it via {{catmain}} would be sensible. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Rename and reorganize per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:The Bangles video albums
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Sole entry is a non-notable redirect. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This redirect goes to an article in Category:The Bangles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Category:Kingdom Hearts original characters
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Kingdom Hearts original characters to Category:Kingdom Hearts characters
- Nominator's rationale: Over 100 characters from various animated Disney movies, were removed from "Kingdom Hearts characters" about 1 or 2 years ago, also that category contains only 1 article. Also, we have to add an explanation to that category after the merge, since then it would only be for original characters. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Shouldn't it be a reverse merge, for clarification that it is about original characters only? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reverse merge per Marcocapelle. If the category is intended to exclude non-original characters like the nominator says then keeping "original" in the title would better accomplish that notice of exclusion than any explanation in the category page that editors may not even see. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reverse merge per Marcocapelle. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Reverse merge Per others, it makes more sense to specify it is only for characters created specifically for the series. That said, in order to preserve the history, the "original characters" category should be deleted first, and the older one moved to the new name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
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.