Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Speedy renaming and merging

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

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

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

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

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 10:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 79 open requests ( refresh).

Current requests

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

Opposed requests

  • Comment: on second thought, perhaps this should go to CfD. Although the main article is Bronx High School of Science, perhaps it should be The Bronx High School of Science per WP:THE, which matches the way this category is currently named. It appears "The" is part of the name. In any case, either the cat name should change or the article name should change so they match. Semper Fi! FieldMarine ( talk) 00:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    The article should be restored to its original title before it was moved without discussion. The school's name is officially with the "The". Gonnym ( talk) 08:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

On hold pending other discussion

Moved to full discussion

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

Current discussions

Shortcut

July 4

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:British place-names containing Brittonic */kɛːt/

Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic of these places. By all means mention these four as examples in a language article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Decades in (Portuguese) Mozambique

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

Category:Tourism in Faisalabad

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

Category:History of Malaya

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

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

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

Category:Mongol states

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

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

Category:Baseball players from Ames, Iowa

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

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

Category:Fictional chimney sweepers

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

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

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



July 3

Category:British co-ed groups

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

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

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

Category:3rd century in Africa (Roman province)

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

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

Category:Family of Boris Johnson

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

16th to 19th century in (Portuguese) Mozambique

Nominator's rationale: merge, all single-article categories, not helpful for navigation. Also consistently use "Portuguese Mozambique", as all articles refer to the Portuguese colony, rather than a mix of "Mozambique" and "Portuguese Mozambique", and Category:Portuguese Mozambique needs to exist anyway. I am proposing the latter because we need Category:Portuguese Mozambique anyway. Splitting in four century categories isn't necessary because the history, establishments and disestablishments categories will ultimately contain only 10, 14 and 4 direct articles respectively. This is follow-up on an earlier discussion with User:Fayenatic london. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm fine with most of these, however,
Mason ( talk) 20:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Commercial photographers

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

Category:Pro-Confederate clergy

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

Category:Czechoslovakian Wikipedians

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

Category:Works about villains

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

Category:Transit authorities with natural gas buses

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

Category:Deep Space Network

Nominator's rationale: The category was originally created for the NASA Deep Space Network. Expansion to "the deep space networks of all countries and organizations" was made explicit in 2013, but the category has never yet been renamed. Nurg ( talk) 05:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Support. The proposed name is a more accurate description. LouScheffer ( talk) 15:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Support per nom. We don't have a main article, but this is a good description of these topics. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 04:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply


Category:Argentine commanders in the Falklands War

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

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


July 2

Religion in China Redux

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

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

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

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

Category:Colonial Puerto Rico

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

Category:Hijacked journals

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. Proposal: listify, where it could be better sourced. Currently this content is not discussed in the eponym article, Hijacked journal, nor in most member artciles, e.g., Sylwan. fgnievinski ( talk) 19:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep None of these are reasons for deletion. If it's not discussed in each article, it should be. That individuals are not discussed in the main eponimous article is irrelevant, because they shouldn't be. We mention the first known case, Archive des Sciences as an example, but there's no reason to mention the others. WP:NONDEF also does not apply because journals do not control if they are hijacked or not, but it's very much an important thing to know about a journal. And if you want to have a list, have a list, but that does not make the category irrelevant or useless. Also an important defense for WP:CITEWATCH. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, lots of things can be a "important thing to know" (for whom?) but that does not put WP:NONDEF aside. No objection to listification if someone volunteers for that. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    for whom? For the reader. If you stumble upon a citation to e.g. Sylwan, it's important to know that Sylwan was hijacked, and that you may not be looking at the real Sylwan but the fake one. Also, per WP:NONDEF
  • a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject.
  • We have multiple reliable sources describing these journals as hijacked
  • if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead section of an article (determined without regard to whether it is mentioned in the lead), it is probably not defining;
  • If it's not mentioned in the lead, it should be.
  • if the characteristic falls within any of the forms of overcategorization mentioned on this page, it is probably not defining.
  • It doesn't fall into any of them.
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Hieronymus Praetorius scholars

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

Category:Tracker musicians

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

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

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

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

Category:WikiProject assessment categories needing attention

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

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

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

Category:MEPs from Italy 2024–2029

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

Category:2024 in professional wrestling in Massachusetts

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

Category:Patrons of Romantic artists

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

Category:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's employers and patrons

Nominator's rationale: Rename the cat to make what's happening a tad clearer. We tend to avoid possessives Mason ( talk) 12:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Support More natural, shorter, and consistent with the rest of the tree. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Destroyed Hindu temples

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

Category:Military history of Australia during the Korean War

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer, the parent category of each is nearly empty. Marcocapelle ( talk) 02:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Support per nom Mason ( talk) 12:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:National military histories by war

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

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

Category:Beauty pageant controversies

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

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

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

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

Category:Timelines of video games

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

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

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


July 1

Battles in Spain 3

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 20:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Tourism in Murree

Nominator's rationale: One entry Hasbers ( talk) 15:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Public universities in Punjab, Pakistan

Nominator's rationale: I think this is a duplicate category. Hasbers ( talk) 15:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Regional prejudice

Nominator's rationale: 1-article recently created category. Category:Prejudice and discrimination not organized this way. Gjs238 ( talk) 11:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Sports venues by former country

Nominator's rationale: We don't categorize other buildings and structures by former country, even if they no longer existed when that country was dissolved. No merger is likely necessary, as all contents are likely in present-day countries. Two of the Serbia and Montenegro categories were deleted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_7#Category:Football_venues_in_Serbia_and_Montenegro. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 01:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:DVD interactive technology

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

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


June 30

Category:20th-century Indigenous Mexican painters

Nominator's rationale: Duel upmerge for now. This is an isolated category without a real need to diffuse by century Mason ( talk) 23:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Support The first merge target contains only 5 articles total. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 01:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:High-technology

Nominator's rationale: High-tech is a hard thing to define precisely, so the inclusion criteria for this category are vague and subjective. For instance, the category contains Science and technology in Israel but not Science and technology in Country XYZ. I don't think we need Category:High-technology as a subcat of Category:Science and technology as this would just isolate a handful of pages in a subcategory without providing a meaningful help to readers. Pichpich ( talk) 22:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Possible tendentious pro-Israel bias on behalf of creator, such as in this category, at recent edits to High tech, and in Talk:Gaza_Strip_famine#Requested_move_24_June_2024. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 01:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Understood, apologies for the misunderstanding. You have my consent to delete. O.maximov ( talk) 11:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Religious parodies and satires

Nominator's rationale: "satires" is not a proper form of the word satire. – MrPersonHumanGuy ( talk) 21:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Support Satires is a valid plural, but no other category title uses this word. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 01:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Sam Smith (singer)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TOPICCAT - originally nominated at /Speedy for WP:C2D but it doesn't meet that criterion to the letter. -- Ferien ( talk) 21:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, too many people are called Sam Smith and, without disambiguator in the category title, articles about all of these Sam Smiths may be added to this category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Surely it isn't too difficult just to keep an eye on the articles going in to ensure other Sam Smiths aren't going into the category? I'd want to assume people know what a category is about before randomly adding articles to it. We have the WP:TOPICCAT guideline that clearly sets out that in general a category name matches an article name, why would people add other Sam Smiths to it when the guideline blatantly says otherwise? -- Ferien ( talk) 16:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Registrars of the Order of the Garter

Category:Defy TV affiliates

Nominator's rationale: Speedy rename: Rebrand 7/1; article already exists Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 17:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Support per primary-sourced statements in articles Defy TV and Ion Plus. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 01:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Madison Square Garden

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE which explicitly mentions this category as an example of one which should be avoided "Likewise, avoid categorizing events by their hosting locations. Many notable locations (e.g. Madison Square Garden) have hosted so many sports events and conventions over time that categories listing all such events would not be readable." User:Namiba 14:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Puerto Rican people of African descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge; Only one article. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 11:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Members of the Fourth Aliyah

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) reply
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) reply
  • 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) reply
    Merge/disperse per Marco's second proposal. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 11:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    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) reply
    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) reply
    • 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) reply
      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) reply
    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) reply
  • @ 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) reply
    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) reply
  • 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) reply

Category:Buildings damaged by the 2023 Al Haouz earthquake

Nominator's rationale: None of these buildings were outright destroyed by the earthquake. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_20#Category:Buildings_and_structures_damaged_by_earthquakes. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 11:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Populated places disestablished in New Brunswick in 2023

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


June 29

Category:United Kingdom art museum and gallery stubs

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with sister categories like Category:British historian stubs; also with others in Category:European museum stubs. All use nationality, not the name of the state. PearlyGigs ( talk) 20:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:United Kingdom museum stubs

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with sister categories like Category:British historian stubs; also with others in Category:European museum stubs. All use nationality, not the name of the state. PearlyGigs ( talk) 20:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:18th century in Mozambique

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

Category:President of the Tanzania Episcopal Conference

Nominator's rationale: Badly named categories for the presidency of organizations. If kept, "president" would need to be pluralized to "presidents" in the case of the Tanzania Episcopal Conference and changed to chairmen (not "man") in the case of the Association of Member Episcopal Conferences in Eastern Africa, whose article ascribes its leaders (including the one person filed here) with chairmancy rather than presidency -- but every organization that exists does not automatically get one of these as a matter of course the moment one or two former leaders of it happen to have Wikipedia articles, so it's not clear that either of these categories are needed. Bearcat ( talk) 18:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Acid Jazz singles

Nominator's rationale: Rename for clarity. This was created to hold singles released on a record label named Acid Jazz Records, but since acid jazz is also the name of a genre of music it's liable to be misunderstood if not named with the utmost clarity. Bearcat ( talk) 18:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Support per nom Gjs238 ( talk) 22:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a person, without the spinoff content needed to justify an eponymous category. Other than the eponym herself, the only other thing filed here is her husband -- but he's a member of the royal family by birth and she's only a member of the royal family by marriage, so he has an eponymous category because there's a lot of other stuff to file in it besides just their BLPs. And her status derives from being married to him rather than vice versa, so in the sense that's relevant to an encyclopedia he's much more of a defining characteristic of her article than she is of his — he's the reason she has an article at all, while his mother, not Sophie, is the reason he has one.
So this would be fine if there were at least four or five other things to file here besides just Edward and Sophie, but she doesn't automatically get one of these just because he has one, if their BLPs are the only things in it. Bearcat ( talk) 17:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Hebrew Bible themes in art

Nominator's rationale: Johnbod pointed out (in this recent CFD and this one) that the topics painted in these cases are subjects, and the use of the word themes should be restricted to abstract topics such as love, death or war. The target for the Paintings category follows Category:Paintings based on the Bible, etc. – Fayenatic London 15:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Paintings illustrating the Song of Songs

Nominator's rationale: Following others within Category:Paintings based on literature. – Fayenatic London 15:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Vassal rulers of the Umayyad Caliphate

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

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

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

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

Category:Whitewashing in film

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 12:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Australian newspaper proprietors

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

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

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

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 11:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:12th-century Almohad caliphs

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

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

– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 12:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Fox Sports 1 people

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 12:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Symplectic topology

Nominator's rationale: In mathematics, "symplectic geometry" and "symplectic topology" are often (though not universally) understood to be two terms meaning the same thing, usually depending on the author's preference and feelings about how "geometric" the subject is. For examples of this usage, see this SE answer and the fact that Symplectic topology is a redirect to Symplectic geometry. The category Category:Symplectic topology seems to be a duplicate of Category:Symplectic geometry. The latter page claims that there is a difference, as "Topological aspects are often categorized as Category:Symplectic topology". However, I don't think this is how most people use the word. Indeed, looking at the pages, it is hard to believe there is much, if any, adherence to this (very subjective) rule! For example, it seems hard to believe that Symplectic basis and Darboux's theorem are "geometric" but Gromov–Witten invariant and Symplectomorphism are "topological". And most things in both categories seem like they could just as well go into either one! The relevant policies are WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:OVERLAPCAT. I propose merging these categories under the more common term "symplectic geometry" and having the category page for "symplectic topology" be a redirect. This is my first time using CfD, so please forgive any mistakes I make. I am not sure if I am supposed to add the subst:Cfm template to the category that is being merged to as well as the category being merged from. Mathwriter2718 ( talk) 15:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge The topological aspects are so important in this field that the main articles are the same. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 16:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep. If symplectomorphism would be better in Category:Symplectic geometry, which seems a reasonable remark, re-categorise it. Unless Category:Symplectic topology ends up empty, which I think shouldn't happen here, the case for a merge is weak. Charles Matthews ( talk) 05:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't think I have any intuition about whether symplectomorphism is "topological" or "geometric". I think it's arbitrary which one it goes into. One might think a page like Floer homology is "topological", because it is homology, but one might think that Floer homology captures geometric data. Whether this is true depends on whether you think symplectic manifolds and symplectomorphism are "geometric". In the end, I just think there's enough ambiguity there to make all of nearly all of these classifications subjective or overlapping. Can you tell us more of your reasoning? Are there a lot of pages that you think obviously belong under only one of the two categories? Mathwriter2718 ( talk) 11:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Per the Tito Omburo comment below, I think you haven't made the case for a merge. There clearly is a difference, and your intuition isn't the point at issue. The usage by people in the field is. Charles Matthews ( talk) 05:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Weak Merge because of the huge overlap described above. I doubt that we have enough editors interested in these topics to maintain the categories well. The work required detracts from the core work of the encyclopedia, which is adding content with citation. ("Weak" because this is always a problem when we try to categorize math topics. It's why I don't engage much with Wikipedia categories.) Mgnbar ( talk) 13:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep. Once I asked Ana Cannas de Silva what the difference was between symplectic topology and symplectic geometry, and she told me that it's really a misnomer, since symplectic geometry is often very topological (spaces under symplectomorphism), while symplectic topology is often very geometrical (Floer homology, Gromov-Witten invariants). Now we shouldn't try to right great wrongs, and I think once one understands this difference, the distinction becomes pretty clear. Tito Omburo ( talk) 13:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge per WP:LEAST: as the distinction appears to be unclear for specialists (I am not), it is certainly confusing for non-specialists for wich the category system is intended. Another possibility would be to make sympletic topology a subcategory of symplectic geometry, since, usually, topology may be considered as geometry without metric. In any case, the work of sorting the articles between the two categories would be a waste of time for competent editors; this is much more important of spending editor time to improve the articles. D.Lazard ( talk) 14:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 12:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Weak oppose, many articles in the category do prominently mention symplectic topology. I realize that Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources, therefore it's a weak keep, but if the articles are wrong in this respect then that should be solved in the first place. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Australian flour millers and merchants

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 11:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Australian commercial artists

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 11:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Merge most - a very mixed bunch here, in most cases they began their career as a "commercial artist", before becoming notable in another type of art. This is common ( Andy Warhol for example, & he has no similar category), & probably not defining. Example: " Hilda Wiseman (1894–1982) was a notable New Zealand bookplate designer, artist and calligrapher.....Wiseman began her artistic career as a commercial artist at the Chandler and Company advertising firm....." Some should be merged to eg Oz photographers, cartoonists etc. Johnbod ( talk) 16:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge: useless differentiation. Isn't the aim for most artists to be commercially successful? TarnishedPath talk 10:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Crime action films

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

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

  • Comment It is often the case that film genres are crossed over as catgeories that are not actually reflective of legitimate and verifiable sub-genres (such as "romantic comedy" or "horror comedy", for example). So is that the case here? I randomly plucked out some of the films in the category and the genre of "crime action" doesn't appear defining for any of them. The genre for Heat (1995 film) is sourced to Rotten Tomatoes which lists the genre as "crime, drama". The "crime action" genre for The Batman (film) is not supported by sources, and whilst Allmovie lists several genres (include crime and action) it does not list the sub-genre of "crime action", unlike Pretty Woman which lists Romance, Comedy and the combination "Romantic Comedy". The genre for The Girl in the Spider's Web (film) is also sourced to Allmovie (inaccurately I might add), and whilst it does not list "crime action" it does list "crime thriller". In these cases the presence of the article in the category appears to be the product of editorial synthesis, unsupported by sources i.e. it may be possible to source "action" or "crime" but "crime action" or "action crime" is not in itself sourced. Are any supporters of the category able to provide reliable source evidence for the films in this category belonging a sub-genre of "crime-action"? It may be possible to locate sources that substantiate the existence of the genre, but membership of a category also needs to satisfy WP:CATDEF too.
Betty Logan ( talk) 01:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. Existing genre that deserves a category. I completely disagree with the idea that crime films should always include action! Just because a film contains a murder does not make it an action film (nor a crime action film, for that matter). See:
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199587261.001.0001/acref-9780199587261-e-0165#:~:text=An%20extremely%20wide%2Dranging%20group,central%20element%20of%20their%20plots.
As for films defined as CA or C-A films, at random:
https://www.michigandaily.com/arts/film/the-roundup-a-womanless-riskless-ruthless-rush/
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/art/2024/06/398_356945.html
https://oxfordre.com/criminology/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-195 (mentioning Rush Hour as a c-a franchise), for example. A GB search shows various results for crime/action, which sometimes indicate it's a new genre: The hybrid nature – and commercial success – of the Bourne films is characteristic of a new style of crime film, the crime/action [1] but plenty with either "crime action films"(or film/movie) or "crime-action films". A note defining the genre as an hybrid could be added on the category page. (Have a look at the category in other languages).- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The term is without a doubt used in common place, but there is no solid definition for it, as the case for most hybrid genres. Why bother separating them? What does it add? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 14:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Furthermore, I can google the term and find people using it, but reading the actual article on action films it states very clearly that these types of terms are used with different values and meaning. There is no solid definition of these hybrid genres. Your Sarah Casey sources only emphasizes that yes, hybrid genres exist, but reading the wiki article, most films past the 90s are hybrids and there is no common meaning with this. As there are none, it fails WP:CATDEF. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 14:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  1. ^ Benyahia, Sarah Casey (2012-02-27). Crime. Routledge. ISBN  978-1-136-58182-3.

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

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

  • Delete poor rationale provided by keep votes and poor definition of category.
Allan Nonymous ( talk) 20:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is no particular pressing need to separate this subgenre, as opposed to simply putting pages in both the "crime" and "action" film categories. It is rather common for crime to happen in action films, simply as a matter of course, making the definition of this subgenre vague at best. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 07:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural oppose as nomination has not adequately accounted for potential issues arising from mass deletion. I looked at Category:Canadian crime action films, the obvious intersection between this batch and my own personal area of expertise, and randomly spotchecked the film Buying Time — but it's in no other "Country genre films" categories at all, which means simply deleting said category without upmerging its contents somewhere would yank that film completely out of the Category:Canadian films by genre tree altogether. And again, that's just the very first film I spotchecked, which means that there are guaranteed to be dozens of other films that will be stranded right out of necessary category trees if these categories are simply deleted without careful surgical replacement and/or transplantation.
    I'm not at all wedded to the need for "crime action" as a genre-intersection category specifically, but just mass-deleting the whole tree at once is a recipe for a total stinkin' trainwreck — so getting rid of it would have to be done as mergers, not as simple deletions, to ensure that films aren't being pulled out of necessary parent trees in the process. Bearcat ( talk) 12:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I wouldn't usually relist 3 times, but Bearcat's comment deserves some consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 11:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Sandžak

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

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

Category:Jewish Canadian philanthropists

Nominator's rationale: Duel upmerge. This is a non-defining intersection between nationality, ethnicity/religion, and occupation. Mason ( talk) 07:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Pioneers of Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Major League Baseball Triple Crown winners

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Its not an award that can be won, its an achievement which is earned. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 21:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
To respond to each of your points:
  • For the three players you identified, the fact that they won a triple crown is noted in the lead of all of their articles. It's also mentioned in the New York Times obituaries for Mickey Mantle and Ted Williams. (Sandy Koufax, obviously, does not yet have an obituary.) I think those are pretty good signs that it's a WP:DEFINING characteristic.
  • Categories and lists are not in conflict with one another, and it's great to have both.
  • I agree that this isn't an award, which makes WP:OCAWARD irrelevant to this discussion. I don't know why you mentioned it in the first place.
Hope that clears things up. - Eureka Lott 22:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I would still say its not their defining characteristic. As for the list, I think its better only because of the recent inclusion of NgL statistics. I am aware of the "Categories and list are not in conflict rule" but, in this case, the circumstances have changed slightly.
Either way, thank you for giving your reasons. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 23:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep: this is one of the most notable achievements that any player can achieve, which is why it's one of the first things that will be mentioned in the summary of any triple crown winner's career. Most sources that list notable baseball records or achievements will have one or more lists of triple crown winners. I cannot think of a single logical reason for deleting these categories. P Aculeius ( talk) 12:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 00:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ P Aculeius; a) its not something you can win and b) the recent change to the statistics makes this no longer accurate. Its WP:OCAWARD and also WP:NARROWCAT.
Also adding @ Muboshgu, @ Yankees10, and @ Wehwalt, from WP:Baseball for their opinion. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 13:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
You certainly can "win" it, in the sense that most of its "winners" are so described in baseball literature. It's not an award, but that doesn't mean you can't win it, any more than you can't win a game, or a race, or a battle... Your reliance on accuracy is misplaced because A) nobody has been officially "unseated" as a winner by the inclusion of more players, so nobody in the category is there erroneously; B) the addition of record from the Negro Leagues simply means that more players can be added to the category. That is not grounds for deletion. Neither of the policies you have cited applies here; this is a frivolous nomination. P Aculeius ( talk) 13:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
And now they have been added to the category, so it is now accurate. P Aculeius ( talk) 14:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
As for not being "won", I'll refer you to Total Baseball, 2nd Edition, pp. 486–491, explicitly calling the players "winners" of the triple crown; Neft & Cohen, The Sports Encyclopedia: Baseball, 1992 edition, p. 649, "Triple Crown Winners"; The Sporting News Official Major League Fact Book, 1999 Edition, p. 475: "Triple Crown Winners"; 20th Century Baseball Chronicle (1992), p. 110: "Rogers Hornsby, who batted .403 and won a second Triple Crown", p. 152: "Philadelphia's Jimmie Foxx won the Triple Crown"; p. 158: "Philadelphia's Chuck Klein won the Triple Crown"; p. 164: "Lou Gehrig carried most of the weight, winning the Triple Crown", etc., and that's just what I had at hand to refer to. P Aculeius ( talk) 14:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Agree it's a defining characteristic and even if it's not, this strikes me as being an IAR situation. It's just useful to have the winners of the Triple Crown as a category.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 13:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I agree it defines those who achieve it. The absence of a physical "award" or "prize" does not reduce its status. It is a recognised achievement that a player "wins" in the sense of "achieves". Also, as Wehwalt says, it's a very useful category. PearlyGigs ( talk) 20:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:National Roads in South Africa

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 00:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply


June 28

X by region in France

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1#X by Y in Z. Thedarkknightli ( talk) 23:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Whirly-Girls

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

Category:Fictional illeists

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

Category:FC Nizhny Novgorod seasons

Nominator's rationale: To comply with the club name change EpicAdventurer ( talk) 19:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Television series by Fox Television Animation

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

Category:Conscientious objector Medal of Honor recipients

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

Category:Former high schools in Tokyo

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. No need to diffuse highschools within a specific populated place and status (Defunct vs current; note that one of the targets is currently being speedy renamed from Category:Former high schools in Japan) Mason ( talk) 14:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment: Tokyo is equivalent to a prefecture, not a city, in a manner like a U.S. state. I'm not sure if this would make the category more viable, or if there should still be a split? WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 23:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Autistic LGBT people

Nominator's rationale: This category is a the recreation of Category:LGBT people on the autism spectrum, which was deleted per /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_31#Category:People_on_the_autism_spectrum as a non-defining intersection. The overall topic is notable, but individuals as the intersection of a specific disability and sexual orientation/identity doesn't really meet the higher bar of WP:egrs. I encourage the category creator to see if the category was previously created before they make more intersections with LGBT and disability. See for a similar ongoing argument for Lesbians with disabilities Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_26#Category:Lesbians_with_disabilities Mason ( talk) 02:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support in principle, but disperse in the tree of Category:People on the autism spectrum in the first place. I am not sure about the proposed merge target because I do not know if autism is generally considered to be a disability. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose/Keep I disagree that only identity+action are more defining than identity+identity, in fact I find autistic LGBT to be more defining than LGBT muderers (which one thing has nothing to do with each other, but since they are religioculturally/traditionally seen as sinful, then we have these guidelines). And as EGRS notes, When making a new category, be sure there is substantial existing research on that category of people specific to the occupation in relation to their sexual orientation. while making it unclear about identity+identity instead of occupation. And as you linked, the topic justifies it as notable. Actually, I find autistic LGBT to be more defining than LGBT with disability. -- MikutoH talk! 23:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    also, isn't it the nominator responsible for searching old deletions to support their arguments? Because I found no previous deletions and decided to create, in my perception for the first time, the category. If I saw that it was deleted before, I would rethink it before creating it. but since that's not the case, I don't understand why you mentioned this fact. or do you mean that previous deletions justify recreation? -- MikutoH talk! 00:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oh you're right, I accidentally ignored the link. -- MikutoH talk! 00:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    That discussion had small quorum with two voting, IP nominated multiple categories in the same bascket. -- MikutoH talk! 23:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Repilies/Questions: What do you @ MikutoH mean by identity+action versus identity+identity? Because the requirement for intersections is the same per WP:EGRS. The bar is set high to avoid tokenization and stereotypes. Most of the categories that meet the threshold for egrs is indentity+occupation. It's a much higher bar to cover three way intersections: being LGBT, being disabled, and the specific kind of disability. It isn't about what you find to be defining. It's what scholarly sources say is defining. We are also running afoul of final rung. Mason ( talk) 23:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I was talkibg about this sentence: a person's actions are more important than, for example, their race or sexual orientation.. And Wikipedia:Consensus can change. -- MikutoH talk! 01:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    And you ignored the studies in the article you linked. -- MikutoH talk! 01:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Ok thanks for clearing that up. I don't disagree with you. I think that the intersection of two identities can be defining, but it does require a heavier bar. And, I just don't think that there's enough literature to support the intersection right now. What I've seen in the literature is descriptive that people are more likely to have both identities than by chance alone. But there are a lot of descriptions like that, such as men who's name start with L are more likely to be lawyers. (Ok not that extreme, but it takes more than just the fact the intersection exists). Mason ( talk) 00:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: WikiProject LGBT studies, WikiProject Disability, and WikiProject Autism have been notified of this discussion. -- MikutoH talk! 23:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak oppose - I think this intersection does qualify as defining for the purposes of EGRSD (in part because it is a notable intersection that I think several reliable sources discuss the incidence of and connection between in-depth), though my opposition is weak purely because I'm concerned maybe there's some nuance of the guideline I'm not understanding here. - Purplewowies ( talk) 01:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    • I've actually been thinking about this a little... what in EGRSD implies a higher bar than the intersection being notable/encyclopedic? Is there someone who could explain that higher bar in a way that makes it clear where the guideline does not? In particular, I don't see anything that suggests a higher bar, and the section's prose even ends with "At all times, the bottom line remains can a valid, encyclopedic main article be written for this grouping?" (Which. It can. The nom says as much.) I'm considering changing my !vote to a non-weak oppose, but I wanted to see if anyone can make me see something in EGRSD that I'm not picking up on. Thanks. - Purplewowies ( talk) 16:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      Here's the quote from egrs, with two underlines.@ Purplewowies
      >Do not create categories that intersect a particular topic (such as occupation, place of residence, or other such characteristics) with an ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or disability, unless that combination is itself recognized as a defining topic that has already been established (in reliable sources showing substantial existing research specific to the topic), as academically or culturally significant in its own right. The mere fact that such people happen to exist is not a valid criterion for determining the legitimacy of a category.
      It effectively says that the intersection needs to be defining as a topic, as opposed to some categories that are just used to diffuse a larger category, like 1901 events etc or people from Georgia. The fact that such people exist isn't enough, which is effectively the argument I'm making. The literature says that these people exist and do at higher rates, which could and does support a page existing, but it doesn't mean that there's a body of academic literature that the intersection of two identities is defining above and beyond that two identities by themselves. Mason ( talk) 21:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 16:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Support per nom but, @ Marcocapelle, @ Smasongarrison, I would say it should be manually merged with Category:LGBT people and Category:People on the autism spectrum. I don't think autism is a disability per se. I can be considered as such in severe cases but not everyone would agree that it is in all cases. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 20:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Good point. I tend to take a broader definition of disability to explicitly include autism and other (equally lovely) flavors of neurodivergence, but you're right that not a universal opinion (It probably stems from my default of wanting more folks on my team 🤣).
@ Omnis Scientia Would you be willing to do the manual merge to determine which folks should be added to the intersection (lgbt+disability)? I think it would be helpful to have someone who has a less universalist approach make the decisions. I'm happy to help with the rest. Mason ( talk) 23:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Smasongarrison, I understand that perfectly! Its a good thing to be inclusive. And sure, I would be willing to manually merge. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 08:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Great! Much appreciated as always Mason ( talk) 20:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Converts from atheism or agnosticism

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

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

Category:Central Greece

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) reply
That is too simplistic a solution for a complex problem. I'll illustrate the problem with maps:
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) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 04:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • 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) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Body horror video games

Nominator's rationale: Seems to be entirely original research, not a thing whatsoever in video games, or in horror video games. User has been warned repeated for adding, and now creating, incorrect categories. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and cleanup It apparently is a thing in video games, there are plenty of sources that describe games as body horror, such as this one and this one. Body horror also has its own parent article. I'm not really aware of what bad categories this user made, but either way, even a stopped clock is right twice a day and that alone isn't a reason to delete a viable category. Any games that sources don't describe as body horror should be removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 13:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Agree to keeping/cleanup AHI-3000 ( talk) 19:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep and purge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 15:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep and cleanup It's definitely a valid horror subgenre, but could use some cleanup, particularly for the franchise categories lumped in.
ThanatosApprentice ( talk) 23:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Involving countries

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with Category:Wars involving former countries and similarly-named categories of non-state actors (e.g. Category:Battles involving peoples, Category:Wars involving peoples; supranational organisations like Category:Peacekeeping missions and operations involving the United Nations; rebel groups like Category:Military operations involving the al-Nusra Front; alliances like Category:Wars involving NATO and Category:Military operations involving the Warsaw Pact, etc.), and to avoid confusion with "countries formerly involved in war X". Follow-up to preliminary discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 22#Involving former countries or by former country involved, where it was found best to let go of the "by country involved" formula as the de facto standard. NLeeuw ( talk) 08:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Marcocapelle: courtesy ping for follow-up discussion. Good day. NLeeuw ( talk) 09:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Discussion about reopening and notifications
  • Comment As nominator I would have appreciated it if I had been notified that this CfR had been reopened, and why, and that it would have been relisted. I only discovered this now: Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working#NAC requests 8–14 June 2024. I personally don't like this naming convention - Category:Wars involving countries seems ridiculous to me (doesn't every war involve a country). But I guess I'm far too late to make this point, as usual. This indeed seems far too late to make this point when consensus had already been achieved. The rationale I provided explains that lots of wars do not involve countries as the only belligerents, and sometimes none at all. These belligerents are known as non-state actors: rebel groups, peoples, alliances, etc. That one personally finds this ridiculous when the rationale has explicitly explained how this is possible is pretty much an WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT argument (they even downright say I personally don't like this), and reopening a closed CfR for this reason alone, not notifying the nom and other participants and not relisting it, and two of the admins who were involved in the decision to reopen it participating in the CfR and then !voting against it (thus overturning the unanimous support that the proposal had enjoyed so far), is quite an odd turn of events. I wouldn't mind reopening a discussion for good reasons, but the !voting of admins involved in the decision to reopen it is rather suggestive of something happening out of process (I don't know the exact protocols for this, but I'll try to find it). I hope the situation can be clarified soon. NLeeuw ( talk) 05:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    I did not reopen this discussion, nor even ask the closer to reopen it. I just refused to use my own admin tools to implement a result I found ridiculous, expecting some other admin to just push the button. Fayenatic london asked the original closer to reopen, and they agreed. There's nothing wrong with that process. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Perhaps not, but I do object to the two of you !voting in this discussion after convincing @ HouseBlaster to reopen it.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, admins should either:
    1. participate in a CfD like a regular editor, not making use of their admin privileges, especially if they have already cast a !vote, because once they do, they should maintain their role as a regular editor for the rest of the discussion; or
    2. be neutral in the discussion, including the !voting, and merely ensure that the process is being followed according to established procedure, making use of their admin privileges if necessary. This includes relisting, closing, and implementing the result if this requires special admin actions (deletion, renaming, merging, splitting). It may also include more regular actions that regular editors could also perform, such as asking the nominator or other participants for clarification of what they mean, or tagging/pinging relevant users for relevant notifications, or other comments for the understanding of participants (e.g. pointing to precedents, previous or simultaneous discussions, or pointing out that a certain user is a sock that had been blocked, and striking their !vote as invalid per WP:SOCKSTRIKE). As far as I am aware, requesting to reopen a discussion at NAC requests at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working is also an admin action that no regular editor can perform. (Edit: Turns out this is not the case; any editor can request reopening a category discussion over there. Thanks to FL for clarifying. NLeeuw ( talk) 18:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)). As soon as an admin takes an admin action, they should maintain that neutral role of ensuring that the discussion proceeds as it should, until it is closed and implemented. reply
    So if an admin requests a reopening, that means their role on the CfD is that of an admin, and they should maintain that role for the rest of the CfD. If an admin !votes, they should maintain the role of a regular editor for the rest of the CfD. If an admin does both things, they are mixing up the two roles they can take. (Edit: Turns out this is not the case; any editor can request reopening a category discussion over there, so this is not an "admin action", and roles are not mixed up in such a case. Thanks to FL for clarifying. NLeeuw ( talk) 18:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)). reply
    Again, correct me if I'm wrong (Edit: I partially was . NLeeuw ( talk) 18:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)), but this is how I have understood how admins are supposed to operate at CfD. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find any policy, guideline, instruction or help page which formally explains how this should work (please link me to it if it does exist!), so my understanding is mostly based on my experiences here at CFD since February 2023. Good day. NLeeuw ( talk) 17:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    PS: There may be some exceptions to what I have described above. For example, I've seen it happen that a CfD was relisted twice by a admin, but there was still very little participation (nobody else had !voted on the proposal yet). Then that admin cast a !vote, and another admin closed the discussion in which the !vote of the first admin proved to be decisive. Is that an issue? I don't think so. Relisting the discussion as an admin and then stepping down from that role and partipating as a regular editor by !voting does not seem to be a problem, as the relisting would not necessarily influence the direction of the discussion. If this change of role helps resolve an otherwise inactive, dormant discussion, that helps Wikipedia move forward.
    The other way around is more dubious. If an admin casts a !vote first, and then later relists the discussion, that might be an implicit "advertising" of their own !vote to other participants.
    Again, this is just what I've seen, and what makes sense to me. I don't know if this is officially approved and agreed procedure written down somewhere, or just convention based on custom / precedent, but never formally written down anywhere. Please correct me if I'm wrong; we could all benefit from clarification. NLeeuw ( talk) 18:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    NLeeuw I apologise for not notifying you of the reopening. I will also ping the other participants Marcocapelle and LaundryPizza03 as a courtesy. Apart from that I don't think there has been any poor practice here. Any user can request a closer to reopen a discussion, e.g. to present fresh arguments. As it happens, Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working can be edited by anybody; I accept that only admins and non-admin closers are likely to visit it, but it doesn't really matter where the request for reopening takes place; it would most often be done on the closer's user talk page, but could be e.g. on a parent category talk page or on a main article's talk page. As for the admin role, Pppery and I cannot close this now that I have participated with a !vote, but I see no conflict re the reopening. – Fayenatic London 16:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Fwiw, I think we have situation 1 here, admins who "participate in a CfD like a regular editor, not making use of their admin privileges". Admin privileges are e.g. the possibility to delete pages and to block accounts, those are not applicable here. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      I think you are right, also based on Fayenatic's explanation that the request to reopen may be submitted by any editor. So that did not happen out of process; the process just isn't clear (at least not to me), because it appears not to be written down anywhere for all to see (and find). I've posed some questions below to try and clarify some things to address similar issues in the future. NLeeuw ( talk) 18:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Fayenatic london Thanks for that explanation and apology, I accept it.
    I'd like to say and ask a few more things that are not intended to influence the result of this discussion, but only to help clarify CfD (including CfR, CfM, CfS etc.) procedures in general. Because I did not know that anyone could request reopening a discussion at that subsection of Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working. Honestly, I browsed through dozens of policy, guideline, convention, instruction, procedure and talk pages, but almost all content about reopening discussions is about deleted articles. E.g. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE should generally apply to category discussions, but its contents don't really explicitly cover scenarios involving categories, let alone CfRs.
    Can reopenings be requested for just any reason? to present fresh arguments seems odd; if consensus has been established and the discussion has been closed, why should any individual person be able to challenge the result on the basis of "fresh arguments"? WP:CLOSECHALLENGE generally suggests that closures can only be overturned for procedural reasons, not in order to continue the discussion itself with on-topic arguments. At least, I see no such scenarios under Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures, which seems to apply to all category discussions (but correct me if I'm wrong).
    The only possible way I see is (A).3 if an early closure is followed by multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion, or a single editor has brought forth a compelling new perspective to the already closed discussion. This is quite a vague stipulation to unpack, but here I go:
    • Was there an "early closure"? WP:CFDAI states Normally, only close discussions if they have been open to participation for more than a week. It was open for 12.5 days (without relisting) before HouseBlaster closed it. So no, this wasn't an "early closure", it was relatively late. Pppery acknowledges this, implying it may be "too late" to reopen: But I guess I'm far too late to make this point, as usual. (Not sure if relisting is required after 7 days without apparent consensus? But that's a minor side-issue).
    • Were there "multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion"? I guess Pppery and FL together are "multiple" editors, so yes, though only barely. Note that @ Ymblanter said: It seems to be consensus though, I will wait a bit and process. So only one editor would not have been enough.
    • To make a technical grammatical argument, perhaps the two clauses of the sentence are independent of each other, and the "early closure" part does not apply to the second clause? In that case, the second clause can be read as if [...] a single editor has brought forth a compelling new perspective to the already closed discussion[, c]losures will often be changed by the closing editor without a closure review[.] In that case it doesn't matter how far too late Pppery was, just what a compelling new perspective he has brought forth. But who is to judge what is "compelling"? And what kind of "perspective"? I note that this appears to have nothing to do with procedural objections such as outlined elsewhere under "Challenge other closures", or under "Challenging a deletion", or under "Challenging a move", all of which are procedural. Apparently it can be a fresh on-topic argument, even long after a regular closure. Might this not lead to arbitrary decisions to reopen discussions based on a single editor's request, thus overturning an already-established consensus? (Ymblanter). Unless I'm wrong, perhaps this stipulation should be clarified or modified to rule out anyone coming along with a "compelling new perspective" that is accepted by an admin for non-procedural reasons?
    NLeeuw ( talk) 17:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    PS: TL;DR version: Is it ever justified to reopen a category discussion for non-procedural reasons, when it appears that no other type of discussion, once closed, may be reopened for non-procedural reasons? NLeeuw ( talk) 18:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    PPS: I'm gathering that "changing a closure" can include three actions: (A) rewording the closure, (B) reopening the discussion without review, or (C) reopening the discussion following a closure review. Does it also include the possibility or requirement to relist the discussion if reopened? Compare Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging a move 2. ...the RM should be reopened and relisted. In this case, neither relisting nor tagging/pinging (initially) took place; it's not required, but perhaps we should make that a rule, just like relisting can be a requirement in an RM that is reopened under scenario (2)? That way, past participants, who may have seen that the discussion was closed (as I did), and were not aware it had been reopened afterwards (as I only found out 2 days later when I happened to check it), can be informed passively (by relisting) or actively (by tagging/pinging) of its reopening, as a matter of courtesy. (I appreciate the fact that Fayenatic london still pinged the other two participants today). NLeeuw ( talk) 18:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion on the actual nomination at hand (as well as the alt)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

If the discussion about procedures should be moved and held somewhere else than CfD, that's fine with me. What would be the best venue? NLeeuw ( talk) 09:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion? NLeeuw ( talk) 22:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Fayenatic, can I ask you for some further explanation/rationale? You said: I find nothing wrong with the phrase "by former country involved". Ok, but that's not an argument in itself. Is there anything wrong with the proposal? If there is, what? If not, then one might as well not !vote, or !vote weak support, or !vote neutral. Moreover, why is there a need to add "involved" to catnames which currently do not have that word? You propose we should, but do not explain why. Good day, NLeeuw ( talk) 09:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ NLeeuw I am persuaded by Pppery's argument agains the proposal. The proposed name is bad because it's meaningless in English, and omits "by" which indicates that it's a container category (with or without a template). I do not accept your rationale as I think it would be improbable to confusion with "countries formerly involved in war X". "Involved" should be added consistently per the precedents linked above, to indicate participants rather than locations. I support the rationale I've recently initiated a push for adding the word "involved" to the latter type of catnames to avoid confusion with "battles *in* Fooland" (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Battles by country and WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN) by, er, NLeeuw. – Fayenatic London 10:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Since when does a containercat need the word by in the catname? Wikipedia:Container category doesn't say anything about that. If we take a look at a random sample of 500 categories which transclude Template:Container category, only 312 of them (62.4%) have the word by in the catname. Are you suggesting that the other 188 catnames (37.6%) are all bad because it's meaningless in English? Or maybe the word by is not necessary in containercat catnames after all? NLeeuw ( talk) 11:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Maybe Category:Naval battles involving pirates is a good comparison? It could work both ways.
  • I assume we agree there is nothing linguistically wrong with this catname. It's not necessary to rename this to Naval battles by pirates involved, because the catname is clear as it is. It's not a containercat, and perhaps it shouldn't be a containercat, because we might be hard-pressed to put all items currently in it into subcategories.
  • On the other hand, does this catname not demonstrate that there is nothing "linguistically" wrong with catnames such as Wars involving countries and Battles involving countries? I do understand that there is a risk of people placing articles directly into Category:Wars involving countries if we decide to rename as proposed, but every once in a while we will just diffuse that to the appropriate subcategory, as we do with all containercats containing articles. NLeeuw ( talk) 11:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • "Battles involving pirates" or "Battles involving NATO" are fine. It's just "involving countries" that fails to convey that it is for subcats by country involved.
    • The May 22 discussion was explicitly only about former countries, and you argued that "involving former countries" was sufficiently clear. I would not strongly oppose that name for a container category, although I prefer to keep names consistent within a hierarchy. However, this nomination fails by trying to apply your preference in that nomination to categories by country, not just by former country.
    • As for using "by" on containers: Category:Battles is a top-level container, like e.g. Category:Dancers, so it doesn't use "by" in its name. However, most of its hierarchy is sorted by parameter using six intermediate container categories, all of which use "by" for clarity – except for one that is currently nominated. – Fayenatic London 12:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      Fair enough, I didn't know how those top-level containers worked and that "by" is not required for them. Is that the case for all those 188 catnames without "by"? Then perhaps my objection is mistaken. NLeeuw ( talk) 16:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Youth activists

Nominator's rationale: I think we should just merge these two categories, they're both extremely similar with the defining feature being that the activist is notable for being young. Mason ( talk) 20:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Child activists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Reverse merge, which should also come with renaming all subcategories from "child" to "youth". QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 08:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment. Reverse merge would conflict though with all of the Fooian children categories. Mason ( talk) 23:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose merging, in either direction - I've slightly reworded for greater clarity the head note for Category:Child activists to read as follows: "This category is for individuals who were notable as activists during childhood, i.e. before the age of 15." Whereas the head note for Category:Youth activists refers to the age range of 15 to 24 years, which conforms with the definition of "youth" that was adopted by the United Nations. Anomalous+0 ( talk) 08:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:User Fanoflionking

Nominator's rationale: WP:UCFD/I#Personal userspace categories. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Rulers of Chiang Mai

Nominator's rationale: per article Kingdom of Chiang Mai. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I'll need to think this over, but right now I'm leaning toward oppose as there's no consensus in history-writing on the English-language term used to refer to such rulers, though rulers is commonly used. On a related note, I notice you've attempted a reorganization to match the category's scope with that of the Kingdom of Chiang Mai article, which I'm not sure was optimal. As raised at Talk:Lan Na, there was not a separate "Kingdom of Chiang Mai", rather the article just covers the a period in Lan Na's history when it was under suzerainty of Bangkok, so it's probably the articles that need to be re-structured. But the categories can be updated again when and if that does happen. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 15:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 04:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Films with scents

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT. Removed three entries where this was non-defining, leaving just the two films and the general topic (which isn't itself a film so maybe shouldn't be in here as an entry; perhaps {{ catseealso}} would've made more sense). QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 08:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 16:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge? Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm not opposed to deletion. Erik makes a fine point about the association being loose. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 17:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Wikipedians with Asperger syndrome

Nominator's rationale: Merge with parent category. Asperger's syndrome is no longer an official diagnosis so there shouldn't be a category suggesting it is either. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 09:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, the categories should be merged. Jarble ( talk) 14:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment: I find it mildly licentious (maybe?) to request a merge of this Category, when the two main articles that are the subject matter of this proposal, namely Asperger syndrome and Autism, are currently being Considered for Merger with no unanimous clear consensus reached against the adoption of said merge proposal.
However, if I am wrong (entirely possible) and this proposal is not precipitate in view of the on-going discussion mentioned further above, then I Oppose, since not all countries have adopted ICD-11, and it continues to be an official diagnosis in some jurisdictions. There is also the possibility that some people might, for whatever personal reasons, identify more with the Asperger’s label than they do with Autism. We should not be taking away a notably significant and not-yet-historic diagnosis because of ICD-11. - Konanen ( talk) 22:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Konanen, I didn't know about the merger and I would be against it myself since the scope of articles and categories are very different. Categories have a more stricter rules. From everything on the matter, Asperger's is no longer an official diagnosis. I wouldn't have taken the step if I wasn't sure. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 23:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Omnis Scientia: Can you (or anyone else) please share what the rules on categories are? I have no idea where to find them, and I really enjoy not spewing nonsense, which I cannot do if I do not know the rules. Thank you in advance! – Konanen ( talk) 23:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Konanen, hey there. You can read the rules at WP:CFD. Being completely honest, its fair complicated and I don't fully understand it myself. Still figuring it out. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 09:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Autism.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 16:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Syndromes with autism

Nominator's rationale: "Syndromic autism" is much more commonly used than "Syndromes with autism". For example, on Google Scholar, "Syndromes with autism" OR "Syndrome with autism" yields about 516 results [4], whereas "Syndromic autism" gives about 3,470 results [5]. Additionally, renaming this category would also make it correspond to Syndromic autism article. Digressivo ( talk) 05:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on deletion? (I am not seeing opposition to the rename if this category continues to exist, so if there are no further comments I would expect this to be closed as rename with no consensus on whether the category should exist.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 16:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I prefer deletion given that what Marco has written. Mason ( talk) 02:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose deletion. Autism is not just a slightly higher prevalence; it is a significant and clinically relevant feature of these syndromes, affecting more than a third or even more than half of the patients in some cases. Digressivo ( talk) 01:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Old roads in Morocco

Nominator's rationale: merge, poorly populated category and other countries don't have this sort of category either. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Hello @ Marcocapelle. My thought when creating this category was to populate it with articles about road systems in Morocco at various historical periods. Even if other geographical areas or countries don't have such a category, that's not a sufficient ground, in my opinion, to merge it or delete it. Perhaps we should consider creating more such categories for other countries or regions, if they can be populated with available topics. In fact, I think topics related to history of traffic and roads still need a lot of coverage. Ideophagous ( talk) 16:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Secularism in the Arab world

Nominator's rationale: I know that technically these are different regions, but... these categories overlap so healvy I think we should merge them. Mason ( talk) 22:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom, but purge the Moroccan and Tunisian subcategories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Comment: If Moroccan and Tunisian sub-categories are to be purged due to this merger, then I would oppose it, because the perceived and projected cultural ties among the Arab world are notable enough to warrant grouping all of these topics into that category.--- Konanen ( talk) 10:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Nothing in the Moroccan and Tunisian subcategories hints at being part of a movement in the Arab world. The content is very specifically related to these two countries only. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
      @ Marcocapelle, I do not understand your point:
      1) Point of clarification: do subcategories and pages within the Secularism category have to reference specific concerted movements, or is any topic related to Secularism within the named geographic region (whichever that may be) sufficient to merit inclusion into the category?
      2) Morocco and Tunisia are, by definition, part of the Arab world. Any movements existing in these countries are therefore logically movements within the Arab world, so unless I have lost all of my abilities to read and understand, I do not think your comment makes sense.
      Clarification would be appreciated! – Konanen ( talk) 12:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose: I appreciate the categories may have heavy overlap, but I do not see why the Arab World, as a geographical and political area/unit, should be of lesser importance than, say, Category:Secularism in England while nobody suggests merging it into Category:Secularism in the United Kingdom, or merging that one into Category:Secularism in Europe.
    @ Marcocapelle suggests that, if the merger goes through, Moroccan and Tunisian subcategories should be purged. That would be a disservice to the bigger picture, since all countries of the Arab world have significant influence over each other’s political movements, see for example the lead at Arab Spring. Marcocapelle’s requirement to make a case that "secularism in the Arab world" is an encyclopedic topic seems to me to be iniquitous, as well. But never let it be said that I would not try to source proof of definingness of the subject matter [6] [7] [8] [9].
    However, if a merger is considered absolutely necessary, then I suggest renaming Category:Secularism in the Middle East to Category:Secularism in the Middle East and North Africa, modelled after Democracy in the Middle East and North Africa. Thank you. – Konanen ( talk) 09:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Question/Comment: Asking for evidence to support something being defining is not "iniquitous", that's a reasonable bar. But what I'm struggling with is why we need both Secularism in the Middle East and Secularism in the Arab world. Are they distinct enough to warrant two categories? I think that merging in reverse would also be fine. Mason ( talk) 19:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Mason: Yes, because the Arab World is a reasonably well-defined geocultural area, while the Middle East, which is a more loosely-defined geopolitical region, comprises—per the WP article—five non-Arab World countries, and moreover lacks 6 to 9 (depending on the count) countries considered as belonging to the Arab World. In other words, there are roughly 18 countries making up the Middle East, 13 of which are part of the Arab World, while the minimum count of the latter comprises 19 countries (maximum: 22 countries).
    It may be useful for some users to limit their browsing of the topic to only Arabic-speaking countries, as their political developments are usually heavily influenced by one another, and correlations within them would be of greater interest, which is not the case for non-Arab World Middle Eastern countries, which has a contested/varying definition. – Konanen ( talk) 22:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I'm not asking if Arab world and the middle east are distinct. I'm asking if the intersection with secularism for each is distinct. Mason ( talk) 00:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge per nom. @ Konanen, I would say the term "Arab world" is the more loosely defined region of the two. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 20:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Marcocapelle, @ Smasongarrison, I think we can create a Category:Secularism in North Africa to represent the second half MENA countries and add any related article there. Just a thought. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 20:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I think that would be a good solution Mason ( talk) 00:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Oh this already exists, Morocco just wasn't in there yet. I have added it now. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose: The Arab world is not more loosely defined. It's the member states of the Arab League. Charles Essie ( talk) 14:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: the Arab League is just that: a league. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Australian police chiefs

Nominator's rationale: Inline with article names. GMH Melbourne ( talk) 14:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Video games featuring Bugs Bunny

Nominator's rationale: This has been discussed before with the film categories, "featuring" is not a defining characteristic, a lot of the articles in this category should not be categorized this way. ★Trekker ( talk) 15:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Video games featuring Daffy Duck

Nominator's rationale: This has been discussed before with the film categories, "featuring" is not a defining characteristic, a lot of the articles in this category should not be categorized this way. ★Trekker ( talk) 15:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Fan translation of video games

Nominator's rationale: Although this category's name was copied from the article Fan trasnlation of video games, this category lists individual games that were fan-translated. QuantumFoam66 ( talk) 19:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete Existence of an unofficial version is a trivial characteristic. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 12:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Video games featuring Sylvester the Cat

Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT. Only three games here are actually defined by Sylvester. ★Trekker ( talk) 15:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Video games featuring the Tasmanian Devil (Looney Tunes)

Nominator's rationale: This has been discussed before with the film categories, "featuring" is not a defining characteristic, a lot of the articles in this category should not be categorized this way. ★Trekker ( talk) 15:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Buddhist monks from the Western Regions

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

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

Category:Intersex plurisexual people

Nominator's rationale: These categories are too small, merging would make them bigger together. -- MikutoH talk! 23:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Oppose per Marco. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 18:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Films directed by Wayne Kramer (filmmaker)

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

Category:Dean bass guitars

Nominator's rationale: 1-article category. Merge to Category:Electric bass guitars by manufacturer Gjs238 ( talk) 12:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Centuries in Podgorica

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer, it is the only subcategory of its parent. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Redcar and Cleveland geography stubs

Nominator's rationale: Only contains 27 stubs, below the usual threshold of 60. – Fayenatic London 08:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Permadeath games

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete? (I don't see any opposition to the rename, if the category is to be kept.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 01:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply


June 27

Category:Circassia

Nominator's rationale: This newly created uncategorized category seems redundant with Category:Circassians. Gjs238 ( talk) 15:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on renaming?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 00:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Battles involving ancient peoples

Nominator's rationale: merge, no clear distinction versus its parent category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 00:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Galician films

Nominator's rationale: Appears to be redundant? Gjs238 ( talk) 15:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
"Irish films" is not the same as "Irish (or Gaelic) language films" and that's why there are several different categories ( Category:Irish films by language). For the same reason, "Galician films" (or "Galician animated films") are not the same as "Galician language films". Gasparoff ( talk) 08:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Absolutely. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 01:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

At the moment I do not have an opinion on whether we should have categories for films by autonomous community of Spain, but assuming we will keep them, it is desirable that we make these catnames less ambiguous. The comparison with Catalan and Catalan-language films also shows this.
We could develop a new convention like Films in Fooian (see the recent Songs in Fooian precedents) versus Films from Fooland (see the recent People from Fooland precedents), but such a decision would have broad implications for our current category structures. Nevertheless, given how often ambiguous adjectives like "Galician" lead to confusion, and recent precedents have developed solutions to avoid such confusion, this seems the best way forward. NLeeuw ( talk) 10:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Princes(ses) by country

Speedy Cfd discussion
Nominator's rationale: So we have two options here: Option A: "Fooian princes(ses)"; or Option B: "Princes(ses) of Foo". Omnis Scientia ( talk) 22:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Pinging @ Marcocapelle from the speedy Cfd discussion. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 22:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ SFBB, you can choose the options here. Then the rest of the categories in Category:Princes by country and Category:Princesses by country can be speedied. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 11:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strongly prefer B for accuracy. When you read "Montenegrin princesses" literally then the category could also contain someone born in Montenegro, not as a princess, who marries a Spanish prince. But the intention of the category (inasfar as it concerns marriages) is people from anywhere in the world who marry a Montenegrin prince. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • This a hard one. First, both categorizations are not equivalent. German princess is not the same a princess in Germany. E.g. Marie Antoinette was the princess consort of France, but she was not French but German (as any other subject of the HRE; Austrian was not considered a nationality back then). The previous example shows how difficult is to work with nationalities, especially as our understanding of nationalities has changed over time. On the other side, the categorization based on current countries is also problematic. What do we do princesses of Prussia? (no longer in Germany) or princesses of Bohemia? (Czechia? Germany? Austria?). I think this is quite close to WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. I think that the healthiest categorization would be Prince of Entity e.g. Prince of Bohemia, Princess of the Two Sicilies, Prince of Spain, etc. (even if the entity does no longer exist). Every other option just sounds very problematic to me and poised to miscategorization. SFBB ( talk) 20:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ SFBB, I agree. This one is a bit difficult given how many such places there in Europe alone. @ Marcocapelle, any thoughts on SFBB's suggestion? Omnis Scientia ( talk) 21:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Prefer option B. Princes(ses) of Foo simply makes the most sense and is the most appropriate categorization scheme from my point of view. Hey man im josh ( talk) 16:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply
My point is that Option B right now (as the categories currently are) is organized as Princes of (current country) or Princesses in (current country). This is wrong as in many case it's not possible to construct a parallel between a current country and the historical entity, the people belonged to. For instance, Mozart was a subject of the Prince-Archbishopric of Salzburg, which was part of the HRE (and not of the Duchy of Austria or anything related to Austria). Subjects of the HRE were considered (and considered themselves) as Germans and never as Austrians (well...except of the subject of Austria proper). The only reason for Mozart beign considered an Austrian is that later (after Mozart's death), Salzburg was annexed by Austria. However, we usually find Mozart to be categorized as Austrian (just check the article), whereas the only historically valid categorizations would be Salburg/Salzburgian and HRE/German.
While I indeed prefer something like Option B, it should be something like Princes of (historical entity) or Princesses in (historical entity) (and by historical entity I also include current countries, e.g. UK, Denmark or Liechtenstein, but it also allows things like Bohemia - instead of Czechia -, Hanover - instead of Germany -, Aragon (as a parallel to Castile, instead of Spain), or the Brazilian Empire (instead of Brazil). Otherwise, we're making the exact same mistake that is described in WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. SFBB ( talk) 11:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Option B for all currently existing and/of well-defined monarchies (e.g. Denmark, Sweden, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, etc) .
  • Delete all ill-defined cases: Germany (move whatever possible to German Empire), Italy (move whatever possible to Kingdom of Italy), the Netherlands (move whatever possible to Kingdom of the Netherlands), and Greece (move whatever possible to Kingdom of Greece)
  • Difficult cases (e.g. Poland, probably including the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Kingdom of Poland, and Congress Poland) would require special attention.
  • In general: completely revise all these categories (not only the ones listed here). SFBB ( talk) 22:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Ps: I just checked and the Greek case seems to be properly defined based on the Kingdom of Greece (I was afraid, I would also contain all kingdoms of Ancient Greece). SFBB ( talk) 22:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • By and large we still agree. I don't think we really need to rename to Princes of the Kingdom of, but we should definitely purge articles (e.g. William of Orange) and recategorize. For the latter, there should be a follow-up split proposal especially for Germany and Italy. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Allegiant Stadium

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE, "avoid categorizing events by their hosting locations". User:Namiba 16:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Hector Guimard

Nominator's rationale: All related articles are contained in a "works by" category so there is no need for an eponymous parent category as well. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 05:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Gospel record labels in Nigeria

Nominator's rationale: Recently created 1-article category. Category:Gospel music record labels not subcategorized by country. Gjs238 ( talk) 01:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Older discussions

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

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

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE