Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Speedy renaming and merging[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 23:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 52 open requests (refresh).

Current requests[edit]

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

Opposed requests[edit]

On hold pending other discussion[edit]

  • @Omnis Scientia: this is now in the "moved to full discussion" section but a full discussion hasn't been started yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle, no idea who did moved it to "full disciussion" - I had moved it to "pending other discussions" while the parent categories were changed from "City or town" to "populated place". Then I was going to bring this to full. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to full discussion[edit]

  • Oppose, not all articles in the category are about clergy. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Move to full? Mason (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Smasongarrison: fair enough, but I would advocate "religious leaders" rather than "clergy" per the other parent category. Religious leaders is broader than clergy. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd be fine with religious leaders. Mason (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Do not we have consensus here? Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Ymblanter: consensus yes, but C2C does not apply because the two parent categories have different formats (clergy vs religious leaders). If this were to be speedied, it could be done per WP:IAR. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I see, someone should take it to the full discussion. Ymblanter (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved to full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current discussions[edit]

May 30[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who play Wuthering Waves[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:USERCAT for lacking any discernible collaborative function. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pool writers and broadcasters[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Rename; three commentators and only one is a writer. The writer can be moved to the parent category. Alt: merge with Category:Cue sports writers and broadcasters given its small size. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cue sports writers and broadcasters[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Split per previous precedent. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Manufacturing companies based in West Fargo, North Dakota[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow intersection of characteristics, resulting in categories with just one entry each. While some "Manufacturing companies based in Specific-City" categories do exist for major US cities with a lot of articles to be filed there, like Los Angeles or Chicago or NYC, they do not need to exist right across the board the moment a smaller city or town has one manufacturing company with an article.
No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when there are five or six articles that can be filed in each of them, but it does not aid navigation to funnel everything down into microcategories of one. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See request to relist (Category:Manufacturing companies based in Fargo, North Dakota was not tagged).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th century in Punjab[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. There is no need to merge, the subcategories are already under Category:History of Punjab, India and Category:History of Punjab, Pakistan. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films directed by Youli Karassik[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Depopulated. Wrong name; correct: Category:Films directed by Yuli Karasik. - Altenmann >talk 19:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category has been emptied. In these situations, you could always turn a category like this into a category redirect. Liz Read! Talk! 19:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know, thanks, but I don't want to encourage French spelling into English wikipedia. - Altenmann >talk 22:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rabbis at West London Synagogue[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - I understand this was made in good faith per an ongoing Cfd on Category:West London Synagogue but there is no category tree for "religious leaders by religious building". Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dynasties of the Jats[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename, 4 of the 5 articles are about states rather than dynasties. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:120mm mortars[edit]

Nominator's rationale: MOS:UNITSYMBOLS and consistency with parent category 120 mm artillery Chris the speller yack 14:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jat surname[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow small category. Gjs238 (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tulu children[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. Non-defining intersection between ethnicity and age Mason (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films directed by Udayasankar[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The subject's full name: https://www.behindwoods.com/tamil-movie-articles/movies-06/vegam-review.html Kailash29792 (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Gjs238 (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish summer camps in New Hampshire[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Triple merge; only two articles. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reform summer camps[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete; no other Jewish religious denomination has their own category. The two articles are already in appropriate subcats so no need to merge. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works about Frankie Lymon[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, only one article in the category, this is not helpful for navigation between articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Inajd0101 (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1941 establishments in Indonesia[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Following the established format. Veracious ^(•‿•)^ 05:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films about The Teenagers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No similar categories for musical acts/groups with only one film about them. Possible delete since film is more about the life of Frankie Lymon than the group. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Fair enough!
And also, yes please. Inajd0101 (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleting it would be fair enough. And yes, this film is more about the life of Frankie Lymon than the group. Inajd0101 (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Private secondary schools in Melbourne[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I don't see why we need two separate categories. This causes confusion with many of the articles in Category:Private secondary schools in Victoria (state) really belonging in Category:Private secondary schools in Melbourne. — GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see this as an issue; its something that happens with a lot of categories which have further subcategories. Just move private schools which are in Melbourne to the appropriate category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indian royals in British Indian Army[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. This is an interesting, but non-defining intersection between royalty, nationality, military service. Perhaps a list? Mason (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mason, thanks for the consideration of these categories. I created these three categories because Indian royals did have representation in the British Indian Army. These were mostly in ceremonial roles, as, for instance, honorary colonel, honorary major general, or more substantively in some cases, as, for instance, involvement in actual fighting or sending troops to the fights of the British Indian Army. The royals to whom I have added these three categories are all princes, rajas, or maharajas of Indian princely states. British India was composed of these two kinds of territories - regions under direct British administration, and the princely states, which came under the suzerainty of the British Crown. The rulers of the latter were required to provide men for various imperial wars, and sometimes went to serve in such wars themselves too. By creating these three categories, I thought of pooling together known instances of Indian princely state rulers and their family members who were in any capacity related to the British Indian Army. One of these three categories, however, can do better with renaming: Former Indian royals in Pakistani Army can simply become Former royals in Pakistani Army. Ultimately, however, whether to keep these three categories or not is your call, of course. Let me know what you think. Best wishes. Apandeyhp89 (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the added context. What you've written here sounds like a good case for a list or an brief article. The challenge is that categories need to be DEFINING as in the characteristic could (and often is) mentioned in the lead or is something that meets the criteria under WP:EGRS. Were these people regularly described as being Royals in the British Indian Army? Mason (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, perhaps then these would do better as a list. While these individuals would wear the same uniforms as others if in active service (that wasn't often the case), their commanding officer would know this person was a royal, and the officer would make it sure to neither give hard manual tasks to such personnel nor send them in the heat of battles. More often, the royals to whom I added these categories were given honorary ranks by the British Indian Army for having provided men from their princely states for colonial military expeditions and wars, such as the Waziristan campaigns, World War I and II, etc., and sometimes just as symbols of political expediency. Apandeyhp89 (talk) 09:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus to merge, but should it also be listified as suggested by Apandeyhp89?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d) 02:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • No objection to a list if User:Apandeyhp89 is willing to create and populate it. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Marcocapelle. I can do that, but that would unfortunately have to wait a few months, due to real life preoccupations. Apandeyhp89 (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Autistic LGBT people[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category is a the recreation of Category:LGBT people on the autism spectrum, which was deleted per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_31#Category:People_on_the_autism_spectrum Mason 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 (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]
Note: WikiProject LGBT studies, WikiProject Disability, and WikiProject Autism have been notified of this discussion. --MikutoH talk! 23:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People on the autism spectrum[edit]

Nominator's rationale:

The main article was moved and also based on this discussion. --MikutoH talk! 00:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The current name strikes an acceptable compromise between person-first or identity first language that neither of proposed renames addresses.[1][2][3][4] Furthermore, the main article was moved to Autism, which doesn't solve the problem for people on the spectrum. Mason (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also relevant are the two CFDs for this category. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 22#Category:People with Asperger syndrome/on the autism spectrum and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 31#Category:People on the autism spectrum Mason (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Autism has been notified of this discussion. --MikutoH talk! 23:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]



May 29[edit]

Category:Closed churches in New York (state)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category, unclear what's the difference between closed/former Mason (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works about same-sex sexuality[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Parent category splitted. Should them be merged or renamed then? --MikutoH talk! 22:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons I believe this should be renamed at least: the term is imprecise and isn't widely used, different from "same-sex attraction" or "same-sex marriage". It's also cisnormative. Could it be named same-gender? I'm not sure. --MikutoH talk! 23:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though I believe it's grouping non-gender LGBT identities, but it's also separating transgender from LGBT sexual orientations in Category:Works about LGBT topics. --MikutoH talk! 23:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It was the wrong choice to "split"/merge the parent category too.★Trekker (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Question. What is the alternative proposal? I really don't understand what the nominator is hoping to accomplish with the merge/rename without a target or proposal. Mason (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am assuming that the intended merge target is the LGBT parent category, but it would be helpful if User:MikutoH would add this to the nomination explicitly. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Film posters by country[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The current category names are ambiguous as to whether they're, for example, posters of Swedish films or film posters from Sweden. I'd recommend renaming to "Film posters of Sweden" like the Commons categories. hinnk (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question I hate to be pedantic, but do you mean:
  • Film posters made in Sweden?
  • Film posters hung in Sweden?
  • Posters of films made in Sweden?
  • Posters of films made by Swedish crew members or crew members from Sweden?
  • Film posters that show "Sweden" (e.g. its landscapes or symbols associated with Sweden)?
  • Film posters made or owned by the government of Sweden?
  • Poster of films made by the government of Sweden?
  • Etc.
All of these are more or less reasonable interpretations of Film posters of Sweden. I'm glad you're trying to clarify the catnames, but I don't see it getting much clearer. NLeeuw (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both en:Category:Film posters by language and commons:Category:Film posters by country already better manage this ambiguity, so it does seem like it can be clearer than it is. Even a decision not to rename but develop a consensus on what the subcategories mean and add that to Category:Film posters by language would make it clearer. I don't think being pedantic is helpful here. hinnk (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, regardless of renaming I do not think this is very ambiguous. Posters of Swedish films (i.e. in other countries than Sweden) would be a rather odd reading. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Leaning oppose; I don't think its very ambiguous. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support matching commonscat.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ludomusicology[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category contains only the main subject and one other article. The subject is rather niche anyway. It is very unlikely that it will ever contain more. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Video game music. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 02:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User cu-N[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Nonsense category created by locked account, nobody can be a native speaker of Old Church Slavonic which is an ancient language no longer actively spoken. Partial refiling of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 12#Babel category enforcement which closed as no consensus due to zero participation (I decided the rest of that nomination is not worth caring about) * Pppery * it has begun... 15:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Babel category duplicates[edit]

Propose merging or reverse merging with redirect

Nominator's rationale Refiling Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 12#Babel category duplicates, which was closed as no consensus due to insufficient participation (nobody other than me and the creator commented). * Pppery * it has begun... 15:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: in the previous discussion, creator clearly misunderstood what was being proposed. Support at least Category:User nrm to Category:User nrf. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deleting "nrf": this is the ONLY correct language code for Norman (some Wikimedia wikis has used "nrm" for Norman, but they are wrong as this code is for a completely unrelated Asian language: Narom; this is wa wellknown historic error made by Wikimedia that forgot to check valid codes in ISO 639 or IANA databases; if it was created today, using "nrm" for Norman would be rejected, "nrf" is assigned since years in ISO 639). "NRM" is already marked has need migration to "NRF" to leave the place for Narom. Wikidata rejects the use of "nrm" for Norman in its data (it is still accepted only in interwiki links to existing Norman Wikipedia, as long as it is not fully renamed).
    The description of the category is perfectly correct: these are NOT at all the same language.
    In the mean time, Narom users should be able to contribute and speak about their language, even if for now they cannot have their own localized wiki, so they have to use some other projects spaces in other localized wikis or international wikis, for example in Wiktionary and Wikidata where their vocabulary is being fed already with "nrm". In HTML/SVG/XML markup the lang attribute used is already "nrf" for Norman. In Wiktionary editions, and in Wikidata, Norman terms are tagged and indexed with "nrf", not ""nrm". Do not confuse legacy Wikimedia interwiki codes (which are bound to Internet subdomain names, without being restricted to use only one language or script, even if there's a default language or script) with standard language codes for identifying any contents. verdy_p (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal is not to delete nrf, so it is no use opposing that. The proposal is to move Norman-speaking entries from nrm to nrf. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User mul[edit]

Nominator's rationale I attempted this exact outcome at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 12#User mul, which got closed as no consensus due to zero participation. My rationale there was:

Way back in April 2022, I nominated this category for deletion, claiming Recreation of category previously deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 30#Category:Multilingual Wikipedians under a technically accurate but nonsensical name containing only one user who has been inactive since 2007. [...]. The creator requested that [I] amend the babel stuff so that {{#Babel:en|mul}} no longer populates a category., which can now be done by editing MediaWiki:Babel-category-override, so the original nomination for deletion is once again valid. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the third time's the charm. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, entirely redundant, Wikipedians who speak multiple languages can indicate the level of the various languages they speak. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Schools in the Garden State Association of Christian Schools[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category. No main page for the group that i could find. Mason (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish summer camps in Michigan[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Triple merge, only one article. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT non-profit organizations in Canada[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Isolated category upmerge for now (probably for ever). non-profit organizations in Canada doesn't exist as a category and neither does LGBT non-profit organizations. Mason (talk) 12:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles in Île-de-France[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. Recent precedents have favoured (up)merging to "Military history of X", but such a category does not yet exist for Île-de-France, so we might as well rename this one. NLeeuw (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping @Marcocapelle: what do you think? NLeeuw (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Battles by location in France and its subcategories.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let Nederlandse Leeuw add a rationale. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale (additional nominees): WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. Recent precedents have favoured (up)merging to "Military history of X", unless such a category does not yet exist, in which case they are proposed to be renamed to "Military history of X" instead. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 24#Battles by location in Germany is a closely connected discussion which has already put this into practice.
(PS: Category:Battles by location in France could be Upmerged to Category:Military history of France by location instead of Deleted for logging purposes, but it doesn't make much difference. Category:Battles by location in Germany is proposed to be merged into Category:Military history of Germany by state, but such a category does not exist for France "by region" yet, so it could better be created than trying to recycle Category:Battles by location in France). NLeeuw (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and re-parent all per nom. This is my second vote. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New South Wales rugby union team players[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The two are covering the same team and should be merged. Especially as New South Wales rugby union team redirects to the Waratahs. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nomination. This was the same side. Where is the dividing line drawn? If 1995, as I suspect, that is entirely arbitrary, there was Super 10 (rugby union) and Super 6 Rugby which were predecessor competitions run on exactly the same lines as early Super Rugby. All players at the Waratahs now, as pre-95, have a theoretical club side in the Shute Shield they can play for when not selected. Skeene88 (talk) 08:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Perhaps there's a better way, but this was an attempt on my part to differentiate between the professional Super Rugby era iteration of the team and the historical side. This would be in the same way rugby league has Category:New South Wales Rugby League State of Origin players as a subcat of Category:New South Wales rugby league team players (though both are captured in the one article). Maybe an option would be to move Category:New South Wales Waratahs players to Category:New South Wales Waratahs (Super Rugby) players? Jevansen (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This seems to be a split for players who played pre-professionalism for New South Wales, and then who played Super Rugby for the Waratahs. While the naming probably isn't perfect, I see the split as being suitable to differentiate between those who played the the New South Wales region, and those who played for the team. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its still the same team @Rugbyfan22: because it seems the Waratah's name was adopted in the 1920's. Just because they turned pro, doesn't mean they stopped being the same side. Rugby was not invented in 1995, the lineage is the same and should be maintained. This is essentially a duplicate category. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:12, 14 May 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) 00:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and listify, I imagine readers would be interested in the players of the pre-1995 era so that seems the easiest way (maybe with a minimum appearance threshold if stats are adequately held to facilitate that?); for the Category, does seem to be a continuous entity so only one cat needed. Crowsus (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on listifying?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 11:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers published in Western Australia by region[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I'm proposing renaming these categories for consistency with the following existing categories:
There are also four other regions (the Gascoyne, Great Southern, Kimberley and Perth metropolitan regions) without categories at present, but I plan to work on articles for as many of Australia's newspapers as I can so I expect these categories to be necessary at some point. The only reason for this nomination is for consistency amongst sub-category names, so I wouldn't be opposed to another naming scheme. This one just makes the most sense to me. Adam Black talkcontributions 16:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Western Australia notified of this discussion. Adam Black talkcontributions 21:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have now created the categories for the remaining three Western Australian regions,
Therefore six of the ten subcategories now follow the same naming scheme. I would also like to add another category to this nomination:
The rationale is the same as for the original proposal. Adam Black talkcontributions 07:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Adam Black tc 23:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all to Category:Newspapers published in Western Australia, apart from Perth there is no reason for diffusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are currently 381 Western Australian newspapers listed on Trove alone. Not all of them have articles, and not all of them will be notable enough for their own articles, but I believe a significant portion will be. You haven't really given a rationale for why these categories should all be merged or why Perth should be a standout, just "there is no reason for diffusion". I think it helps readers navigate what could become quite a large category. Adam Black tc 12:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think Perth should be a standout. My point is that only if there would be as much content in every category as in Perth's category it would be worthwhile to diffuse. But that is not the case. The current microcategories are merely a hindrance for easy navigation between related articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • strong objection to most of this discussions assumptions. As creator of the microcategories in discussion here, they were created in the presumption that the project of the National Library and ALIA to support each state library system to improve content about Australian newspapers state by state to help create content for material in Trove would be something that would be expanded upon regularly. The result in other states is highly variable in quality and organisation - in the Western Australian content there was a library employee who edited on WA content, and there was every hope that there would be followed on editing for more newspapers for each region than is being discussed here. The subsequent lack of followon editing is a case throughout wikipedia, this is not an orphan. I believe how sensible Adam might think he is in wanting to qualify the regional title, or Marco in being a category worker extraordinaire (and that should be noted is much appreciated ), the lack of background always astounds me here at CFD. I think that for the purposes of what the original project had intended, will be made much more of a hell of a mess and difficult to navigate the regional distinctions of western australian geographical range, and how it also affects understanding of the original reasons for the regional separation. As a consequence, I strongly object to reducing to one category, as it interferes with a project that would have increased valid items for each subcategory. As for the renaming - it is paradoxical, in view of many australian places have qualifier state names, whereas here there is no need.JarrahTree 01:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 11:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:West London Synagogue[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only has people who are affiliated with the Synagogue. I guess it would fall under WP:NONDEF. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest it be renamed as People associated with West London Synagogue. 10:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Headhitter (talkcontribs)

Category:Battles involving the East Frisians[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy rename.
copy of speedy discussion
NLeeuw (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British writers by ethnic or national origin[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Similar to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 18#Category:Canadian musicians by ethnic or national origin. Aldij (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian writers by ethnic or national origin[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Similar to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 18#Category:Canadian musicians by ethnic or national origin. Aldij (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians by ethnic or national origin[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Follow up of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 10#Container categories by descent and many other similar discussions. Aldij (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wars involving Frisia[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, in many of these wars there wasn't a clear Frisia state. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I'm not convinced the status quo nor the proposal are very tenable. I neither favour nor oppose. NLeeuw (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominated.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assorted Jelly Beans albums[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Both entries are redirects. The band is also a redirect, and doesn't appear to be notable. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unhelpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No useful information provided in target; no aid in navigation. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gonanes[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Contains only the parent compound, which is alredy in Category:Steroids. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 02:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chinese-language-only video games[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Some of these titles may be available be it digitally or physically outside of China. But I don't follow that logic. Merge. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This merger makes no sense. Taiwan exists. There have been vidoegames that were made for Taiwan or Hong Kong (pre-1997) that were only in Chinese. If this is properly populated, it should not contain just PRC-exclusive games. -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: I suppose I will withdraw my will the delete this category because of that logic. While Japanese, English, get deleted for some other reasons. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with parent (below) — Insufficiently specified. Which language? Mandarin? Cantonese?
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games by language[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The reason why I'm deleting these categories are only for video games supported in a single language, and none of these categories are fully-populated either. More importantly many titles only available in a single language can alternatively be found in Category:Region-exclusive video games QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NONDEFINING. NLeeuw (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English-language-only video games[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I am deleting this category along with other Video games by language categories, (expect Chinese-language-only video games, which will merge with China-exclusive video games). Reason: Many English-only titles are otherwise located in Category:North-America-exclusive video games QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NONDEFINING. NLeeuw (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Migrant to the Ottoman Empire people from British India[edit]

Nominator's rationale: option A: merge, three categories for only one article is not helpful for navigation. Option B:delete, the article is already in Category:Emigrants from British India and Category:Immigrants to the Ottoman Empire which seems to suffice. For a citizen of the Ottoman Empire it is irrelevant which specific Indian ethnicities all of his ancestors had. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support either merge or delete, because these categories are very much not helpful for navigation.Mason (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which option?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same question: which option?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños faculty[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This is an institute Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños within Hunter college. This category is too small to be helpful with navigation right now. Mason (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the upper-level category of City University of New York faculty is for a system of colleges and institutes, and the articles in it should be diffused into the appropriate subcats for each of the different colleges within the system in the same way as categories are done for other university systems. Ideally, all of the articles in the CUNY faculty cat would be diffused into subcats of the different colleges or institutes. Additionally, from what I understand, the centro is housed at Hunter College, but is a separate institute within the CUNY system. Semper Fi FieldMarine (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. No objection to diffusion as such, as long as it colleges are big enough to contain lots of articles, but that does not seem to be the case here. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:02, 13 May 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) 00:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sugar[edit]

Nominator's rationale: They are too similar MRTFR55 (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Sugars. Comments on a potential rename of the plural category would be appreciated!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Japanese-language-only video games[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There is only a single article in this category, first things first. Second things second, literally every single video game that's only available in the Japanese language is already located in the pre-existing category Japan-exclusive video games. You see, Japan really only speak Japanese and not much else. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NONDEFINING. NLeeuw (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Analysts of Ayodhya dispute[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Alternative name sounds more consistent with other categories in Scholars and academics by subject Mason (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as the page creator. I have no objection. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the spirit of WP:PERFCAT, this is just one of many topics that the subjects in this category were involved. No objection to listification. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: rename or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: I was on the fence between deletion and renaming when I made the nom. My hope was that other folks who have strong opinions/knowledge. Mason (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: same question: rename or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Marco. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meal planning apps[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only a single article inside. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, it might not contain any more articles QuantumFoam66 (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now without prejudice. NLeeuw (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 28[edit]

Indian writers by language[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The contents of the category nominated in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_27#Category:Indian_novelists_by_language; seems to juxtapose ethnicity and language, having the naming convention of the former but parent categories more appropriate for the latter. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 23:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A split would lead to pairs of categories with almost 100% overlap. Shouldn't we just rename the categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Azure Striker Gunvolt series[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, the parent category is nearly empty and a "series" subcategory is not very common. This was opposed at WP:CFDS where it was nominated for C2F which obviously does not apply. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Loanwords in Indonesian[edit]

Nominator's rationale: To match all other subcategories of Category:Lists of loanwords. Belbury (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, or alternatively merge to both parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icon tracking categories[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Match categories with {{flag icon}} and {{flag decoration}} (which were recently WP:BOLDMOVEd per WP:TPN). I also think we should change with missing to simply missing, as the former construction is a little awkward. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to the unknown parameter category renaming. Thanks for the talk page notice leading me here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Climbing video games[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Finishing the tidying up of these climbing/mountaineering categories and want to align their naming with the others, such as Category:Works about climbing and mountaineering. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Climbing magazines[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Finishing the tidying up of these climbing/mountaineering categories and want to align their naming with the recently renamed others (such as Category:Works about climbing and mountaineering). Should also add the term "journals" here as there are several 'mountaineering journals' contained in this category. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1890 establishments in Malawi[edit]

Nominator's rationale: "YYYY establishments" categories are supposed to follow the name the place had at the time, not the name it has now, so "Malawi" is an anachronism in these years. (In addition to these, I also found a couple of siblings where "YYYY in the More Appropriate Name for that Year" already existed, so I've simply redirected those accordingly -- but in the cases batched here, the appropriate "British Central Africa Protectorate" or "Nyasaland" category doesn't already exist yet, so the Malawi one would need to be moved.) Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the creator of the categories and I agree with the above renaming proposal as it makes more sense. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of African descent by country[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There is no such container category for other continents, and there is no valid reason to make an exception for Africa. All these categories are already included in the Category:People of African descent tree through categories like Category:Asian people of African descent and Category:European people of African descent, among others. Aldij (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Billionaires of African descent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided. The combination of being a billionaire and being of African descent is non-defining. Aldij (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivial intersections. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have Black billionaires and there are dozens of articles about this intersection. Per WP:EGRS, "At all times, the bottom line remains can a valid, encyclopedic main article be written for this grouping?"--User:Namiba 14:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Ministers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:NONDEF. No other shadow (i.e. opposition party) ministries in any country has categories like this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Books by Harold Macmillan[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent category. Only one article. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, this is not helpful for navigation between related articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Books about David Cameron[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Only one article. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, this is not helpful for navigation between related articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Broadway restaurateurs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. This is a WP:OCNARROW Mason (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dual merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created this category. It is worth noting that it is not intended for restauranteurs who run restaurants physically located on Broadway in NYC, but instead for those who run restaurants which cater to and are frequented by "Broadway people" - actors, directors, theatre-goers, etc. As such, it is a rather specific list, and I think it has some value that would be lost if it was eliminated. OTOH, I created a bunch of these categories a while back and some of them have been eliminated already for similar reasons, by editors who didn't see the point in special-casing "Broadway".Brianyoumans (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not even have restaurateurs categories by U.S. states or cities. By state would be acceptable though. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia formatting and function templates[edit]

Nominator's rationale: From the hatnote, If you do not find what you are looking for in here, try the parent category Category:Wikipedia utility templates or one of its other subcategories. The distinction between these categories is unclear, and this one may need to up-merge. Either they need to merge (which is probably the easiest), or we need to come up with a clear distinction between the two (which will be a pain to put into effect, unless there is some preexisting distinction that is not clear to me). HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. What does "function template" even mean? jlwoodwa (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Executed Nazi propagandists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. Non-defining intersection between occupation + political orientation + cause of death. Mason (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 27[edit]

Category:17th-century executions by the Province of New York[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. There's no need to have a category like this with just a single person in it. Mason (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women prime ministers of Finland[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:NARROWCAT. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women prime ministers of the United Kingdom[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual Merge per WP:NARROWCAT. Category is already in appropriate subcats of Category:Prime ministers of the United Kingdom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cautiously, this category does already have three entries, and it would be an awkward judgement that we are unlikely to have another female PM soon. PatGallacher (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PatGallacher, not saying there won't be, just that the category's scope is too narrow. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NRISref errors[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No longer useful to Template:NRISref. This was a tracking category that would track for uses without a database version, but those are not a thing anymore. New NRHP sites do not have this. See Template talk:NRISref#Template-protected edit request on 27 May 2024. SWinxy (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of MyrtaBeautyQueen[edit]

Nominator's rationale: An older sockmaster was discovered after this category was created. It is helpful to have all the socks in one category for understanding and analyzing long-term abuse. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will drop a note at WT:SPI.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: If it has been established by the WT:SPI crew (can any documentation of this be shown?), then maybe someone can educate me if this might even qualify for a Speedy merger, since I am a newbie at the procedural side of Wiki. –Konanen (talk) 10:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm the CU who connected MyrtaBeautyQueen to DevilBlack69. I just reviewed the notes and can't see any reason these categories shouldn't be merged. Go for it. Note that the category assignments are actually done via the {{sock}} templates on the user pages, so what you really need to do is update all those templates; I would suggest leaving a link to this discussion in the edit comment when you do that. RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caucasus Jews[edit]

* Propose deleting Category:Caucasus Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There are two Jewish ethnic groups originating from the Caucasus region: Mountain Jews and Georgian Jews. The term Caucasus Jews currently redirects to "Mountain Jews." These two groups are culturally distinct; they speak different languages and have many differences in customs and culture. However, other Jewish communities have also resided and continue to reside in the Caucasus region, including primarily Ashkenazi Jews, as well as some Sephardic and Bukharan Jews. Therefore, this category does not make sense. Currently, this category encompasses Jews from three modern countries, yet "Caucasus Jews" redirects to "Mountain Jews." Note: I have just separated the entries for category:Jews from Georgia (country) and category:Georgian Jews. Aldij (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The category is fine. I would also be okay with it being named something like Category:Jews in the Caucasus or "from the Caucasus", which would include subcategories for Armenian Jews, Azerbaijani Jews, Georgian Jews, Mountain Jews, and Jews from the Caucasian parts of Russia. The parent category for this should be Category:Jews and Judaism in the Caucasus, along the lines of Category:Islam in the Caucasus. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the updated proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Jews from the Caucasus" per above discussion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Secularism in the Arab world[edit]

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]
      • @Konanen: there is certainly an Arab world, but it isn't obvious that there is Arab world secularism. Unless further evidence is provided this category is a case of a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I am very sorry, but I still fail to understand it isn't obvious that there is Arab world secularism. What does that even mean? Does a movement of secularism have to be run by the same organisation in every single country that is part of a defined geographical region (→ Arab world) to be considered as existent? If so, then how does merging Category:Secularism in the Arab world into Category:Secularism in the Middle East make any sense? And why not merge that into Category:Secularism in Asia when we are at it? Konanen (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Konanen (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • In order to get any further in this discussion you need to make a case that "secularism in the Arab world" is an encyclopedic topic. That does not require a single organisation though. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 29 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 [5][6][7][8].
    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]

Category:Members of the League of Women Voters[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Simple membership in the League of Women Voters is non-defining. User:Namiba 15:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many siblings contain (just) activists, which is much more defining than membership. We might rename and purge this one as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Ikawa Line Stations[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per author request. plicit 13:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary, sparsely populated category. Only one other such subcategory in Category:Defunct railway stations in Japan and it contains 22 articles. Gjs238 (talk) 15:03, 27 May 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:Women conservationists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: A non-notable intersection of gender and occupation. User:Namiba 14:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sort the rules out Wikipedia's policy on this is far from clear. Category deletion should be based on a clearly agreed set of rules and until then such categories should be left alone. Why is a "Female United States senators" category OK when "women conservationists" is not. I can assure you that to become a conservationist in PNG is for a women in PNG a considerable achievement and far from "non-notable". Roundtheworld (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivial intersection with gender. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Shouldn't these be merged to Conservationists? These women are still conservationists. Mason (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by educational institution in Surrey[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge; only one category layer. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Executed people from Surrey[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual Merge only to Category:Executed English people per discussion below; only one article. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with Asperger syndrome[edit]

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]
  • Mild support, we should keep article Asperger syndrome for historical reasons, but user categories like Category:Wikipedians with Asperger syndrome aren't about history, they are about now. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lean oppose. The removal/subcategorization of Asperger's isn't really as clear cut. Many people were diagnosed with the disorder when it was in existence (which I think was as recently as 2019?), and they might very well still identify with that diagnosis, even if its been subsumed. I'd really like to get some more voiced from folks active in the Autism wikiproject as well as folks from the category itself. (I'm aware that we have have some good representation in CFDs, but... I'd rather have more voices on this rather than fewer). Mason (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smasongarrison, I would love for them to have a say, certainly. I'm personally still learning about it myself and I could very well be wrong here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was very confident that you would :) And I think that the tentative approach we're taking here is a good way to go about it. I could be convinced in either direction. Mason (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films with scents[edit]

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]
  • Comment I disagree that it's not defining on Postcard from Earth, where the 4-D aspect of the film is discussed substantially. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 10:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article only mentions the scent once in the lead and says nothing substantial about it in particular. If there's more to be written about that aspect then it should be added, at which point I would reconsider the category placement. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Autonomous oblasts of Russia[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There is only one Autonomous oblast of Russia — the Jewish Autonomous Oblast. No need to have this category, which only has said page and two redirects, when Jewish Autonomous Oblast could be categorized under the cat Federal subjects of Russia. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Federal subjects of Russia. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indian novelists by language[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Are these four subcategories supposed to be for ethnic groups or languages? Either way, these people are not necessarily Indian nationals. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 05:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former universities and colleges of Jesuits[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The current name is not only awkward and not parallel to the name of the related category for current Jesuit institutions ("Jesuit universities and colleges") but its meaning is also unclear. ElKevbo (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone has a (legitimate) concern that "Former Jesuit" is also ambiguous - does it mean "a university or college that was once a Jesuit institution but is no longer a Jesuit institution" or "a Jesuit university or college that is now closed" ? - then "Formerly Jesuit universities and colleges" would resolve that ambiguity. The category does currently include institutions in both of those situations so this may be important. ElKevbo (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Can you please say more about "the distinction between current and former Jesuit is also not enormously important." In my mind, it's a very important distinction as it indicates a very important shift in the institution's mission, organization, and support. ElKevbo (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an entirely different subject and you're welcome to establish that category if you feel strongly about it but it doesn't seem terribly relevant to the discussion at hand. And I completely disagree that "the category is primarily useful to learn about the history of the Jesuits" as its primary use is to identify colleges and universities who are identified with that particular religious order. It's less about the history of that order and more about the intended function and role of these colleges and universities.
"Every university or college will eventually be closed or taken over" doesn't seem like a very helpful or productive perspective at all. Every religion will eventually fade into disuse or change until it's unrecognizable. The sun will eventually explore destroying all life and structure on the planet. The universe will eventually fade into heat death. None of that is very useful when considering what we should or should not do here and now in this encyclopedia. ElKevbo (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People educated at Coláiste an Phiarsaigh[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unneeded category - Only 2 entries which I've added to the school article, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: a list on a single article is no reason to reject a category accomplishing the same task in a different area of the site. Plus, there are now twice as many entries as there were at time of proposal. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean to delete, attandence of a particular secondary school is not a very defining characteristic of an individual person. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my reply to Peter James here, I guess this can be withdrawn although for the record I'm not happy about it nor do I see a point in having duplicate information... But if EN wants duplicate information for the sake of having duplicate information then who am I to get in the way of that. –Davey2010Talk 10:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Categories are not superseded by lists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; there are many categories like this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People educated at De La Salle College Dundalk[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Superseded by the same list at De La Salle College Dundalk#Notable alumni, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: a list on a single article is no reason to reject a category accomplishing the same task in a different area of the site. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean to delete, attandence of a particular secondary school is not a very defining characteristic of an individual person. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my reply to Peter James here, I guess this can be withdrawn although for the record I'm not happy about it nor do I see a point in having duplicate information... But if EN wants duplicate information for the sake of having duplicate information then who am I to get in the way of that. –Davey2010Talk 10:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Categories are not superseded by lists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; there are many categories like this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People educated at Alcester Grammar School[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Superseded by the list at Alcester Grammar School#Notable alumni, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: a list on a single article is no reason to reject a category accomplishing the same task in a different area of the site. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we want duplicating information though ?, Why do we need an under-populated category when a list within an article does the same job ?, Also do you have any sort of link that explicitly states duplicating information is fine because if you do I'd happily close this. –Davey2010Talk 00:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are navigational tools, while lists in articles can include way more information. They serve distinct purposes. If we were strict about not repeating any information in different areas of the site, a vast amount of categories would go extinct, including probably all of Category:Works by creator because most of those also have sections/separate articles just for listing their oeuvre. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess this is one of those things I will never understand, How is a duplicate category "complimentary" when it's literally a duplicate??, Why do we need 2 things of the same thing ?, what is achieved or what is the end goal in having 2 of the same thing ?, I don't get it I truly don't.
Nonetheless Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates are not considered duplicative renders my whole arguement moot so I guess my only option here is to withdraw, Thank you for providing that guideline it's greatly appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 10:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Categories are not superseded by lists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; its one of many categories. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Racionais MC's songs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Newly created 1-article category. Gjs238 (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:SMALLCAT (deprecated, but still worth pointing to here as I don't think opinions have changed on this part) makes an exception for Category:Works by creator categories so long as they follow other guidelines, and this one does. Unless the sole entry is itself found deletable (and I have a feeling it wouldn't be) then the category is safe. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Relational art[edit]

Nominator's rationale: New category containing only 2 redirects. Gjs238 (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this does not help navigation at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Neither entry makes mention of relational art as a subject, and the relational art article doesn't mention either entry nor their targets, leaving it entirely unclear why they are being included in the first place. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Denis Ten Memorial Challenge templates[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Do we categorize templates this way? Gjs238 (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:European Youth Olympic Festival Figure Skating templates[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Do we categorize templates this way? Gjs238 (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the templates are already in established figure skating categories and having just two templates in a new category isn't particularly helpful. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nepela Memorial[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Do we categorize templates this way? Gjs238 (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Post-theists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Is this category necessary? Gjs238 (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:13th-century Baduspanid rulers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I don't think we need to diffuse Bavand or Baduspanid dynasty by century. Instead I think we should repurpose it to be a nationality category. Mason (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 01:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep But why? Both dynasties almost lasted 1000 years and had many rulers. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the category only contains two centuries... and we don't typically have categories at the intersection of occupation+century+family dynasty. And we don't have parent categories for several of the two way intersections, which makes it hard for me to see a case for why this narrow intersection is defining. Mason (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fanny (band)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Too little content: only two cats and two articles (and the two cats only have 4 or 6 articles themselves). ―Justin (koavf)TCM 01:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nepali language movement activists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories. Rervse merge also fine by me Mason (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not exactly overlapping, one is a category of Indian people, the other of Nepalese people. The former is related to the Nepali language movement which was a movement specifically in India. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images that survived replaceability discussions[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The category is for all types of files (including e.g. videos), not just images. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that I am not wedded to the proposed name (they are not really discussions, just a declined F7c). HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 26[edit]

Category:Mythological cycle[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The Mythological Cycle is a proper noun and should be capitalized. --YukaSylvie (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per C2A. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 05:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per WP:C2A. –Konanen (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Urdu-language historical novelists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There's no other language categories for this genre of novelists. The two category members are already in historical novelists for their nationality. Mason (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. No other language category for novelists is subdivided by genre. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 05:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Urdu-language fiction writers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Per the parent Category:Fiction writers Fiction writers is "intended as a parent for more specific subcategories only; writers should not be filed directly in this category. Please reclassify writers found here into more specific categories by their country of origin and/or type of fiction (novelists, short story writers, etc.)" I interpret this to mean that we shouldn't have a category dedicated to fiction writers for a specific language. (And notably the only category of Fiction writers like this) Mason (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Youth activists[edit]

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, HouseBlaster (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]
  • @Anomalous+0: if it is really desirable to make this distinction (which I am not convinced of) it means that every subcategory by nationality needs to be split too. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paintings of Hebrew Bible themes[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, a split between Hebrew Bible and Old Testament does not make too much sense in biblical art which largely originates from Christianity. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge, Hebrew Bible is the main tree here. NLeeuw (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but Upmerge & redirect Category:Paintings based on the Old Testament to its parents per Fayenatic london. NLeeuw (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a "main" tree per se. Old Testament is different (order of bible books), broader (with deuterocanonical books) and more applicable to topics that are more exclusively associated with Christianity. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether deuterocanonical books are included depends entirely on denomination. "Hebrew Bible" is the name for the 39 books common to Judaism and Christianity, and I see no reason why Christianity should be regarded as more important.
    On second thought, it might be better to upmerge Category:Paintings based on the Old Testament to its parents, as it is currently a mostly redundant layer. How does that sound? NLeeuw (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re "Whether deuterocanonical books are included depends entirely on denomination", as things stand the "deuterocanonical books" category is within the "Old Testament" one, so isn't this an argument against the status quo as well? But it's resolved if Category:Paintings based on the Old Testament is upmerged to its parents, leaving the subdivisions of the (Christian) Bible as "Hebrew Bible", "deuterocanonical books" and "New Testament" – with no "Old Testament"? I hope I've got that right. Ham II (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you've got that right! NLeeuw (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on FL's proposal would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I understand FL's proposal. I'll try to read it again carefully. NLeeuw (talk) 06:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sacred excrements, I still don't understand lol. I'm gonna need a pc with 2 monitors, or work it out on paper, but I'm on a train and haven't got either. I'll have to return to this question later. NLeeuw (talk) 06:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is one of semantics: what is meant by "Old Testament" is dependent on religious tradition. As I said above, Whether deuterocanonical books are included depends entirely on denomination. This is best illustrated by Old Testament#Content: the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) (24 books) corresponds exactly with the Protestant Old Testament (39 books; same contents, just split into more books), but the Catholic Old Testament (46 books) adds 7 deuterocanonical books, and the Orthodox Old Testament (49 books) adds 10 deuterocanonical books. Therefore, arguably the "Old Testament" tree (at least when it comes to Biblical art) is a WP:POV-based WP:ARBITRARYCAT, which presumes that Roman Catholicism / Eastern Orthodoxy are theologically "correct", and that Protestantism and Judaism are theologically "wrong". Obviously, this is not a POV Wikipedia can adopt. The simplest and most elegant solution is to phase out the "Old Testament" art tree wherever it is an unhelpful WP:OVERLAPCAT or WP:NARROWCAT, and have an independent "deuterocanonical books" art tree that is a direct child of Category:Biblical art, separate from "Hebrew Bible" art. Template:Hebrew Bible category (widely used in the "Hebrew Bible" tree) already suggests such an approach; although that might itself suggest a "Jewish/Protestant" POV, it is one informed by pragmatism in categorisation.
On closer inspection, it appears Fayenatic and I completely agree, and we are suggesting the same initial steps towards solving the problem. But more is necessary to fix the entire problem. Just phasing out "Old Testament" is not enough. As I suggested, "Hebrew Bible" needs to be Purged of "incestuous" parent/sibling/child categorisation, and "deuterocanonical books" needs a separate, independent tree directly under Category:Biblical art in order to fully disentangle this mess. Good day, and hopefully my commentary is helpful to you all. NLeeuw (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add some suggestions for a follow-up discussion. Not to be added to this one, but hopefully give better insight which direction we should probably be taking if we'd like to resolve the issues. NLeeuw (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested solutions for a follow-up discussion
  • Keep and follow the course of action NLeeuw has outlined instead (of removing "Old Testament" categories, etc.). Ham II (talk) 07:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bhutan-tv-stub[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 21:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to parent (Category:Bhutan stubs) per standard WPSS practice. Grutness...wha? 03:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Grutness: when you say redirect, do you mean keep the template but have it populate Category:Bhutan stubs? (This also applies to other nominations on this page; I am arbitrarily picking one rather than pinging you a bunch of times.) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, exactly. That's standard stubbing practice. If the template is there, then it can still be used, it just doesn't need a category. It's the categories which should be nominated for deletion, not the templates. Stub templates are quite often either left unused, emptied, or simply used to fill a parent category. Grutness...wha? 04:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Bhutanese television stubs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the merge outcome is more convenient, even though we have zero articles about Bhutanese TV programs. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 05:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:India-cricket-season-stub[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 21:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Indian cricket season stubs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2020s-Western-film-stub[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template –LaundryPizza03 (d) 21:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:2020s Western (genre) film stubs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per Grutness and standard stub sorting procedure. Her Pegship (?) 18:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a sorting category. These are somewhat elastic in that they may be empty from time-to-time and other times may be populated. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1960s-Tamil-film-stub[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 21:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to parent (Category:Tamil-language film stubs) per standard WPSS practice. In many of today's nominations, it looks like there is serious undersorting of stubs rather than an actual lack of need for their use. Grutness...wha? 03:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:1960s Tamil-language film stubs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Zealand-cricket-ground-stub[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 21:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:New Zealand cricket ground stubs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in China[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename, "in" is an odd preproposition in relation to a dynasty, "under" or "during" makes more sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1950s-UK-single-stub[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template –LaundryPizza03 (d) 21:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to parent (Category:British single stubs) per standard WPSS practice. In many of today's nominations, it looks like there is serious undersorting of stubs rather than an actual lack of need for their use. Grutness...wha? 03:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:1950s British single stubs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uruguay-cemetery-stub[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 21:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Uruguay cemetery stubs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WashingtonCountyID-geo-stub[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 21:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to parent (Category:Idaho geography stubs) per standard WPSS practice. Grutness...wha? 03:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep; Generically, it would be great to eliminate unused stub classes, but:
    1) it would be the ONLY county without the category
    2) There are some articles that are weak "Starts" that are in there.
    3) There should remain a "place" to put new stubs when needed.
    Mjquinn_id (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Washington County, Idaho geography stubs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WestIndies-cricket-season-stub[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 21:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:West Indies cricket season stubs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wisconsin-road-stub[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 21:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Wisconsin road stubs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:North American sports venue stubs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only contents are a stub template that does not populate the category. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 21:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Grutness's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Executed French people[edit]

Nominator's rationale: manually merge, follow-up after this earlier discussion. Only the second reason of the previous discussion applies now: trivial intersection with location. Manually merge insofar the articles aren't already in one of the other subcategories e.g. Category:French people executed by Nazi Germany. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cricket articles needing attention to tagging[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Category not found in code of Template:WikiProject Cricket anymore so not in use. Gonnym (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:India MPs 2019–present[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The 2024 Indian general election was declared and is currently going on. The term of the previous MPs definitely ended in 2024. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why such a rush? Let's not close this discussion until the 2019 parliament is formally dissolved. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer / oppose per Marcocapelle / WP:CRYSTAL. NLeeuw (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I could have justified my reasoning more. The synopsis of the last day of the Budget session of parliament on February 10, has the following statements:
    • Page 27: "Hon. Prime Minister and Hon. Members, the tenure of this Lok Sabha is drawing to a close today with this session of the Seventeenth Lok Sabha."
    • Page 35: "The National Song was played. (Thereafter, Lok Sabha adjourned sine die)" -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really, is India without a functioning parliament for a couple of months? In that case by all means rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pilot licensing by country[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This is borderline c2c, but it could also be that there is no parent category for Pilot licensing. Mason (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Laicized Roman Catholic priests[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining, and borderline perfectcat Mason (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aircraft categories[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category with confusing name Mason (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Aircraft category is a technical term, not the same thing as an aircraft type. cagliost (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per cagliost. The confusion is understandable though; I suggest we add Template:Category see also to both and refer to each other to aid navigation. NLeeuw (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See also would help. I've added a second category of Terminology, which would help. I think also adding a category explanation for what this means would be helpful as well. Mason (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of bankruptcies[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There's only two pages in there that are actual lists. The rest is a collection of categories for companies that have declared bankruptcy. This isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Oppose. I have removed one page that shouldn't be in the category. Now we have two pages that should be in this category, and some subcategories. I don't see the problem for navigation. cagliost (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The subcategories don't belong here, they do not contain lists. Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lifeboats of the Titanic[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. These two pages are already interlinked. This category really isn't helpful at this stage. Mason (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disability and lesbianism[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I encourage the category creator to make a main page about this intersection, because right now this just seems like a narrow collection at this 3xintersection of gender+disability+sexual orientation. Mason (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lesbians with disabilities[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining interseciton between gender+sexual orientation+disability, per WP:EGRS. (For the record, I am both queer, female, and disabled; and after searching the academic literature, I am extremely skeptical that this intersection is defining for individuals, given what litle i found). Mason (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete, trivial intersections, per WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question So we're keeping Category:Disability and women and Category:Disability and lesbianism, but considering deleting subcategories for specific women and lesbians with disabilities? Because the phenomena are notable enough, but for individuals it is non-defining? Or at least, lesbians with disabilities do not stand out amongst the larger group of Category:LGBT people with disabilities? I think I might support that reasoning. NLeeuw (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much. There's broader literature on the topic for women; so it might be helpful to have gathered together. Disability and women could include gender-based health discrimination etc. Disability and lesbianism could include topics at the intersection, case law, trade magazines, etc, but right now... I don't think there's enough content (see above). (I'm on the fence). But for specific people, there's not something particularly unique about being a disabled lesbian above and beyond being a disabled LGBTQ person. Mason (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Then Merge/delete per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep they are defining but separately. Also, why delete Lesbians with disability and keep Category:Transgender people with disabilities?. --MikutoH talk! 23:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply. If you don't think the intersection is defining (a.k.a. only separately), then the category should not be kept per WP:EGRS. (And I didn't nominate the trans category because I wanted to do more reading about the subject before I made nominations.) Mason (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Yorkshire geography stubs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unused stub templates. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 21:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to parent (Category:North Yorkshire geography stubs) per standard WPSS practice. In many of today's nominations, it looks like there is serious undersorting of stubs rather than an actual lack of need for their use. See comments under Central Bohemian geography stubs, above. Again, as there, the templates would be autimatically kept - it should be the categories that are proposed for deletion/upmerging. Grutness...wha? 03:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're now all finally used as they should be. Some of them (Harrogate, Hambledon, Richmondshire) have categories which are well over 60 stubs; the other templates can be upmerged - although serveral are close to the 60-stub threshold. Not sure why these were never used in the first place. Grutness...wha? 08:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • They were not used as I changed them to the parent North Yorkshire ready to delete them. Keith D (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gah. 1) why didn't you say that they were no longer used rather than unused, which implies that they had never been used?; 2 why didn't you comment when I said they were victims of undersorting?; and 3) why did you empty them prior to a deletion discussion which may result in them being kept? If you wanted to change them all to North Yorkshire, all you had to do was turn the templates into redirects to {{NorthYorkshire-geo-stub}}. You didn't need to go through this whole process! If you do go through this process, don't empty them first - do what it says to do on the tfd template! PS - if these districts are no longer used, what areas do you suggest splitting North Yorkshire into for stub purposes, as the NYk geo stub category will be over the 600 stub threshold for splitting? Grutness...wha? 16:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as "what links here" gives a list of articles that someone working on, for example, Craven, would want to develop. (The proposal is to delete the template, not the category, so admittedly the category could serve the same purpose.) --Northernhenge (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, no it wouldn't. Stub categories re populated by the template, so without the template there'd be no category! Grutness...wha? 05:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete districts aren't generally a good way of dividing stubs (or set categories) into. Its normally best to just put all in the ceremonial county. In addition these districts have been abolished for over a year. Also do the same with the Cornish ones. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete they are all out of date as have been abolished and just upmerge the categories they populated to North Yorkshire where they should now reside. Keith D (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Grutness, now that the cats are populated. Her Pegship (?) 17:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think there is some confusion here. The proposal seeks to delete the templates, but many people are commenting on whether the categories should exist. As the categories have not been tagged, I will do so. I will also note that many of the templates/categories are now in use.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete sensible to delete these as districts no longer used so as to avoid confusing people. 86.187.229.36 (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment some (all?) of these named areas had a history before the local government districts used their names, so abolishing the local government districts may not, in itself, always make the name redundant. --Northernhenge (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disinformation operations[edit]

Nominator's rationale: this is follow-up on this previous discussion. After purging it is more clearly about disinformation, but does not clearly distinguish itself from its parent Category:Disinformation. Hence manually merge (only insofar appropriate). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Coddlebean, Nederlandse Leeuw, and Hmains: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    do not agree 'Disinformation' is a about a fact: false and misleading information. 'Disinformation operations' is about a process, something that people are organized to carry out, generally by a political entity of some kind. Very different articles involved, as they should be. Hmains (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Murdered Australian rules footballers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining 3x intersection between cause of death, occupation, and specific sport within that occupation. (Delete instead of merge because Murdered sportspeople only has this category in it, and has the same intersection issue) Mason (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of films by date[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't agree that it is redundant, it helps keep the parent category less crowded.★Trekker (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is 14 or 15 subcategories, that does not make the difference. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mountaineering organizations[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge both to Category:Climbing and mountaineering organizations. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are both climbing and mountaineering organizations so the separation is no longer useful, better to have one single category called Category:Climbing and mountaineering organizations Aszx5000 (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Aszx5000: for thoughts on the discussions relisted today. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why relist when Marcocapelle and myself are in agreement on all of them? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are both saying the same thing? Aszx5000 (talk) 10:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aszx5000: I misread your proposal (Propose merging Category:Mountaineering organizations to Category:Climbing organizations). I will close these discussions now. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 26 May 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:Works about mountaineering[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge both to Category:Works about climbing and mountaineering. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per the recent CfD on Category:Climbing and mountaineering books, the Category:Works about mountaineering should be merged into Category:Works about climbing, which should then be renamed as Category:Works about climbing and mountaineering. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:02, 26 May 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:Mountaineering films[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge both to Category:Climbing and mountaineering films. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per the recent CfD on Category:Climbing and mountaineering books, the Category:Mountaineering films should be merged into Category:Climbing films, which itself should be renamed as Category:Climbing and mountaineering films. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:02, 26 May 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:Invasions by country[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category will never have more than its current 2 subcategories: Category:Invasions by country invaded‎ and Category:Invasions by invading country‎. It exists only by virtue of the ambiguous meaning of the word "country", which is only explained by the two subcategories. It therefore does not aid navigation, and should be upmerged to its parents so that direct navigation to the subcategories is possible. NLeeuw (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. "This category will never have more than its current 2 subcategories"? Check again, your argument is invalidated. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's just stacking the category with grandchild categories. It really doesn't aid navigation. It remains a redundant layer. NLeeuw (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick: What do you think about this? AHI-3000 (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nominated and delete all new subcats, merely creating extra container categories doesn't improve navigation between related articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support deleting all new subcats as nom. I don't know if I should tag them as well, but I think we should make clear to the creator that creating new subcats isn't very helpful in the middle of a CFD, and in fact somewhat disruptive. (There is probably a guideline against it, but I can't find it right now). I would ask @AHI-3000: to please stop creating new subcategories of this category for the duration of this CFD. Thanks in advance. NLeeuw (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw: Then cite which specific rule is against doing that. Your initial claim was that this category cannot grow larger than 2 subcats. AHI-3000 (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidently I was mistaken, for one could technically populate the category without actually solving the semantic and navigational issues I highlighted. NLeeuw (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete subcats Per WP:NARROWCAT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 23:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AHI-3000: if you were just trying to make a point it would be the most elegant solution if you would tag the new subcategories as G7. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: G7? AHI-3000 (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I don't see a reason to create multiple subcategories of Category:Invasions with little difference from the parent category. Dimadick (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the subcategories of Category:Invasions by country. As it stands, I currently am reading consensus to merge Category:Invasions by country as nominated and delete the subcategories (though, of course, consensus can evolve).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to participants (not to HouseBlaster, who has understood this correctly): only deleting the newly created subcats that have been created in order to populate the category under nomination. Category:Invasions by country invaded‎ and Category:Invasions by invading country‎ are to be preserved (and have not been tagged). NLeeuw (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crystal City, Arlington, Virginia[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per request; I will tag the category.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 25[edit]

Category:Buildings Downtown Portland, Oregon[edit]

Nominator's rationale: --Another Believer (Talk) 14:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It's the "Downtown" that distinguishes this category. Portland is a major city with many distinct neighborhoods. It would be helpful to look up buildings by neighborhood, rather than lumping every building in the city together. Thanks. Pickwiki (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pickwiki: If you're going to create subcategories, then I'd suggest Category:Buildings and structures in North Portland, Oregon, Category:Buildings and structures in Northeast Portland, Oregon, Category:Buildings and structures in Northwest Portland, Oregon, Category:Buildings and structures in South Portland, Oregon, Category:Buildings and structures in Southeast Portland, Oregon, and Category:Buildings and structures in Southwest Portland, Oregon, based on Category:North Portland, Oregon, Category:Northeast Portland, Oregon, Category:Northwest Portland, Oregon, Category:South Portland, Oregon, Category:Southeast Portland, Oregon, and Category:Southwest Portland, Oregon. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, rename to Category:Buildings and structures in Downtown Portland, Oregon. No opinion on whether than warrants a category. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery I've proposed a different way to subcategorize above, if you are interested in revisiting this discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Art awards by country[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There's a bit of an inconsistency issue in this category tree that's causing some confusion. All of the subcategories here are named "X art awards" except the American one, which is Category:American visual arts awards -- but the parent category is Category:Visual arts awards rather than "Art awards", which resulted in me having to do a major cleanup run to move a whole lot of articles that had been left in the parent instead of being moved to any of these subcategories, potentially because these are named differently than the parent and thus people didn't realize they existed. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this old chestnut keeps rearing it's ugly head, Art is not a sub-category of Visual arts and Category:Art awards by country has been incorrectly categorised subsequently to its creation. Category:Arts awards by country etc would be a better parent category. "Art" includes more than just the 'visual'. Sionk (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Art" includes more than just the 'visual'. Indeed. The recent CfR on art festivals (see below) established that music / dance festivals and literary festivals are not considered "visual arts" festivals, but they are "art festivals". If musical/dance and literary artists are suddenly excluded and disqualified from membership in this tree, that has a lot of consequences. We need to work out the semantics first, and then assess the consequences any changes would have for the category tree. NLeeuw (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and if there are any articles about awards that are not for visual arts then move them to a new Category:Art awards. Sionk has a point but by just opposing we don't solve the problem that Bearcat put on the table. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is basically recommending renaming these categories then recreating them again. The sensible approach would be to extend the "Visual arts" tree, if that is what Bearcat thinks is needed. Sionk (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and also support Marco's proposal. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sionk's commentary is worth examining. I'll add that Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 14#Category:Art festivals in the United States was recently withdrawn by nom who couldn't justify renaming "art" to "visual arts" on second consideration. We need to consider the semantics and consequences for the tree. (Not voting on this proposal yet myself). NLeeuw (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom and also support Marco's proposal. We have "considered the semantics and consequences for the tree" many times, and they would be very extensive, not worth the trouble, and introduce large numbers of clashes between article and category names. So don't let's do that. We know that there are senses of "Art" that include literature etc, but the restriction in many if not most contexts of "art" to visual art, and Arts for the wider sense is normative in English, and Sionk should learn to live with that. In category names, with no immediate accompanying text, more precision may be needed, hence my support. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. In places where "art" proves to be a confusing term for some (I myself don't have any trouble with it) we should remove the ambiguity by having only "arts" or "visual arts", as appropriate. Ham II (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turkic Sufi saints[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There have been several cfds that found that Turkic foos aren't defining. It looks like this category was missed. Mason (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Singles by decade by record label[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No need to break them up by decade--that would be better handled with a discography anyway--and no need to have the scheme Category:Singles by decade (in the 21st century only) and record label. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 02:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, there was already a discussion about this. Sahaib (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 01:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Officers of Ipswich Corporation[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There is only one page here, which isn't helpful for navigation. I strongly encourage the category creator not to create categories with only one page in them. Mason (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even better! Mason (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Marco. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alder carrs[edit]

Convert Category:Alder carrs to article Alder carr
Nominator's rationale: I don't really know what to do with this category. I think it's for a very specific kind of wetland that only applies to a specific kind of tree. This category feels like a non-defining intersection between kind of tree and kind of landform, but I'm not an expert. Mason (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This category appears regularly as a feature on early Ordnance Survey maps. Leutha (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Romanian people by ethnic or national origin and occupation[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — nothing wrong with having only two subcategories, and as noted by Super Dromaeosaurus, there is potential for at least two more. — Biruitorul Talk 21:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Except for politicians (as Romania posits itself as a nation state, ethnic politicians often represent the interests of ethnic minorities), such association in entirely irrelevant and should not exists, per WP:EGRS. If somebody wants a random category intersection, there are tools out there that can create it using existing categories. Anonimu (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The two keep votes are both implicitly referencing SMALLCAT with mention of potential for growth. SMALLCAT is not longer a a criteria to keep a category. If ether of the keeps want to make more well populated categories that's great, but until then, the category is unhelpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Conspiracist media[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category contains medias that are mainstream, and most of these are from certain countries. Coddlebean (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete; perhaps upmerge A lot of these are indeed conspiracist media, like InfoWars. But categories are not a place where we can verify their status as conspiracist. That's a job for reliable sources in articles. WP:RSP can help. But verification of membership is probably a time-consuming effort. If we don't do that verification regularly, this risks becoming a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. But perhaps we should upmerge the category to its parents? NLeeuw (talk) 06:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean to delete, considering the fact that many articles are already in a more specific subcategory of Category:Conspiracy theories I don't think this category adds much value in itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep These are not mainstream media; they are something else. Whether or not they are mostly from certain countries is beside the point; they are from wherever they are from. Specific media outlets are quite different from specific theories and, as such, are not (and should not be) in the random set of articles I looked at in Category:Conspiracy theories. Hmains (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, to distinguish between media promoting conspiracy theories and those merely investigating them. Paleontologist99 (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Paleontologist99. - Amigao (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated places on the Underground Railroad[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Specific buildings which served as stations on the Underground Railroad are absolutely defined by it but an entire town, city or county is usually not. In some cases, certain locales like New Bedford, Massachusetts were such hubs of the Underground Railroad that they should be kept in the main category but that can be done on a case by case basis. User:Namiba 15:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep These are historically related places. They were certainly defining for these places during the historical period involved here: 1840s and 1850s in the United States. These illegal activities were something that many people in a place were at least silently aware of and did not bring to the attention of law enforcement. In many cases, the articles do not point to a specific building(s) so there is no use in thinking that will keep tying these together, as they should be. Hmains (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it defining though? In most cases, no. Neither Portland, Maine nor most other cities are not defined by the fact that they had a stop in the Underground Railroad. For cities which are defined as such, they can and should be categorized within the tree. If you can show otherwise, I will withdraw the nomination.--User:Namiba 17:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious buildings and structures destroyed in the Muslim period in the Indian subcontinent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content. They are all Hindu temples. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the alt rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Great Britain[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Option A: remove header and a remove a number of parent categories. Option B: nominate subcategories for merger. In any case, the current content of the category is completely out of sync with how the category creator(s) intended. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, please clarify the issue with this particular category. I don't really follow. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palestinian American activists for Palestinian solidarity[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. This is an extremely narrow intersection of activists for a specific cause, intersecting with nationality and ethnicity. Mason (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dual merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Middle Eastern anti-racism activists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category lawyer with only three middle eastern nationalities in it. Mason (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Yoruba Muslim leaders[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename per Category:Yoruba religious leaders. This category was at WP:CFDS for a different rename proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
  • Oppose, not all articles in the category are about clergy. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Move to full? Mason (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Smasongarrison: fair enough, but I would advocate "religious leaders" rather than "clergy" per the other parent category. Religious leaders is broader than clergy. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd be fine with religious leaders. Mason (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Do not we have consensus here? Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Ymblanter: consensus yes, but C2C does not apply because the two parent categories have different formats (clergy vs religious leaders). If this were to be speedied, it could be done per WP:IAR. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I see, someone should take it to the full discussion. Ymblanter (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Mason (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terrorist incidents in Venezuela[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This category only has one page in it and it's also not clear cut if the one page Attack on Fort Paramacay is terrorism. Mason (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Male bacteriologists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between being male and a specific kind of biologist, under per WP:EGRS Mason (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women speculative fiction editors[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between editor, genre of editing, and gender. There's no male editor category in general. Mason (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Michigan-Ontario Collegiate Conference football seasons[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only one subcategory. Let'srun (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; part of well-established tree. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, categorization by year suffices in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Template Large category TOC on category with up to 1200 pages[edit]

Nominator's rationale: We have sub-tracking categories either to avoid a massive parent category or because different situations require different fixes. The category tree is currently empty, so it is not the first one. And they all require the same fix (swapping to {{Automatic category TOC}}; you don't need a large TOC for categories which have fewer than 1200 members). Therefore, there is no need for this amount of granular detail; one tracking category is plenty. (See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 23#Category:Categories without CatAutoTOC and friends.) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Template Category TOC on category with X–Y pages[edit]

Nominator's rationale: After Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 23#Category:Categories without CatAutoTOC and friends, these are all redundant category layers with one subcategory. Merge all to Category:Template Category TOC tracking categories. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Template Category TOC on category with over 1200 pages[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy keep. (Withdrawn.) (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following up on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 23#Category:Categories without CatAutoTOC and friends, I think that this category makes the most sense as part of Category:Categories which use Category TOC without Automatic category TOC. (If a category does use {{Automatic category TOC}} and has more than 1200 pages, it will automatically use {{Large category TOC}}. Therefore, any category with more than 1200 pages with {{Category TOC}} does not use {{Automatic category TOC}}.) This merge will also allow for a massive simplification to the code of Template:Category TOC/tracking. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:24, 25 May 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:American Roman Catholic poets[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I think we should broaden this category because there's no Roman Catholic poets parent category and all the siblings under category:Catholic poets by nationality are FOOian Catholic poets. Mason (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I honestly had no idea there were types of Catholics until today but I agree, this should match other similar categories to this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, diffusion by church body within the Catholic Church is only useful if there are a significant number of Eastern Catholics too, but that does not seem to be the case here. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Activists for Palestinian solidarity[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This is a random mix of people who aren't activists. Purge the category and leave in actual activists. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I'm not too sure about it but maybe rename to "Pro-Palestinian activists". Any other suggestion would be helpful; this one seems rather vague. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait for some consensus here before I proceed with the subcategories. Honestly, going through them, I don't think any of these people in any of these categories were checked to see if they actually were activists for Palestinian solidarity, particularly given a number of these aren't pro-Palestinian but rather anti-Israeli. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer keeping this category, I should add, since there is a big Palestinian movement and activists who are pro-Palestinian. I just think we should be careful who to put in. Some of these "pro-Palestinian" people aren't pro-Palestinian at all. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support doing something, but mixed on the alternative rename. I think that the "Pro-Palestinian activists" are indeed a more specific subgroup that are definitely nested within Anti-racist activists. Perhaps splitting or nesting/reorganizing to acknowledge that there are also activists for Palestinian civil rights etc. idk 🤷 It's really complicated.Mason (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smasongarrison, it is quite complicated, you're right. I'm not too sure about myself but, IMO and as you have said yourself, "Pro-Palestinian" is less vague and more definable than "Activists for Palestinian solidarity". Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair point. (To be clear, I'm not opposed to the rename if that's were consensus goes. ) I've started cleaning up the ethnic/religious intersections with the group in the hope that I'll have some inspiration. Mason (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge: a removal of articles about people who weren't activists is a no-brainer. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Southeast Asian people of Brazilian descent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: We do not categorize descent categories by regions; we only group them by continents and countries. I do not see any valid reason to make an exception for Southeast Asia. Aldij (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Southeast Asian people of Chinese descent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: We do not categorize descent categories by regions; we only group them by continents and countries. I do not see any valid reason to make an exception for Southeast Asia. Aldij (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Academic libraries in Algeria[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge for now. There are only two redirects in this category, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works by Sidi Boushaki[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Only one poem in here, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Algerian inventions[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Redudant category layer (merge for now). The lone child category is already in all the parent categories it needs Mason (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Painters of the Holy Land pre-1948[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I'm not really sure what to do with this category name, because it isn't particularly helpful/descriptive. Is this painters from after 1948 who painted the "holy land" or is it painters of what the "holy land" looked like after 1948. Mason (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early modern period[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename. First, a capital M is not needed, per Early modern period, Category:Early modern period and Category:Early modern period by country. Next to that, we may harmonize the categories further to either "Early modern country" or "Early modern history of country". I will add targets to the nomination when the latter becomes a bit more clear in the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, by the way! This must have been quite an effort to set up and work out. NLeeuw (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting how little consistency there is in the parent articles' titles: Early modern Britain; France in the early modern period; Germany in the early modern period; History of early modern Italy; History of Poland in the early modern period (1569–1795); Scotland in the early modern period; Early modern history of Serbia; Early Modern history of Spain (a redirect); Early modern Switzerland; Early modern history of Ukraine (another redirect) – and Pomerania during the Early Modern Age, Early Modern Romania and Early modern period in Wales for good measure. Do we need to look at these first? Ham II (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to Early modern history of Fooland, lowercase "m" (following several recent precedents), and "history of" to prevent any anachronisms about countries that didn't yet exist, or didn't yet have their modern names (at least not in contemporary sources, or historiographical convention / common parlance), e.g. the Netherlands (most but not all was the Dutch Republic), the United Kingdom (most but not all was the Kingdom of Great Britain), Ukraine (most but not all was the Cossack Hetmanate or Hetmanshchyna), Germany (HRE, you know the drill), Belarus, India, etc. NLeeuw (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and Nleeuw. Excellent points! Mason (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and Nleeuw. I concur with Mason. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, but merge the United Kingdom category into Category:Early modern history of Britain, which serves any purpose the UK one would have and is less anachronistic. Ham II (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough to merge, but then Irish redirect should presumably be purged? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sportspeople by sport and populated place[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Per a discussion in speedy. We should first change "city or town" to "populated place" before proceeding with nationality categories. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Marcocapelle, @Smasongarrison, and @Armbrust from the speedy discussion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all. When these were made, "city or town" was the standard for WP categories, but the more inclusive "populated place" is now the norm and makes perfect sense. Grutness...wha? 10:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nom. And thanks Omnis for doing the legwork on getting these cats in line with the populated place norm. Mason (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per several recent cases in which we renamed this way. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to see them renamed accordingly, less clumsy than the current names. Sionk (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: If these are renamed as proposed, therare a lot of by-country subcats of these which will also need renaming. Grutness...wha? 02:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grutness, if this gets through, those will be done in the next one or via speedy. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good - thanks. Grutness...wha? 15:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Basketball people by city or town[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent categories. Only one category layer. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see now, thanks for clarifying.--User:Namiba 14:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. :) Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Involving countries[edit]

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]

Category:Saipan[edit]

Nominator's rationale: To match the article name, which was just changed because of recent consensus that WP:USPLACE applies to U.S. territories. -- Beland (talk) 06:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:USPLACE does not apply to islands, does it? Besides articles about towns on Saipan are formatted as "town, Saipan", not as "town, Northern Mariana Islands". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tinian[edit]

Nominator's rationale: To match article name, which was changed per recent consensus that WP:USPLACE applies to U.S. territories. -- Beland (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rota (island)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: To match article name - moved due to recent consensus that WP:USPLACE covers U.S. territories. -- Beland (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heliports in Massachusetts[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Category lacks subjects. Let'srun (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge for now without prejudice per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 06:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposal from NLeeuw. Let'srun (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Administrative divisions of the United States by state[edit]

Nominator's rationale: It contains pages and subcategories for US territories, and there is no Category:Administrative divisions of the United States by territory or Category:Administrative divisions in United States insular areas or similar that I could find. Which would contain only a small number of pages and subcategories. -- Beland (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. This rename is consistent with the gradually shift from states to states or territories. Mason (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women portrait painters[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge for non-defining intersection of gender+type of artist+subject matter of the artist under WP:EGRS Mason (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Plurisexual people[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I hate to be that person, but... neither of the two people added to the category have the word plurisexual mentioned anywhere on their pages. Is this really a defining category for individuals, under WP:EGRS? Because it effectively seems like its extremely similar to this CFD for Polysexuality Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_26#Polysexuality. I've always thought of it as an umbrella term to allow for the grouping of queer, bi, and pansexual people, rather than a term that is used to describe individual people. [9] [10] If the category is kept, I think it should be containerized. Mason (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 24[edit]

Category:Characters designed by Toby Fox[edit]

Nominator's rationale: You may not agree with this, however I'm nominated this category deletion since every article (except Gaster) is also in the category for undertale characters. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Intersex plurisexual people[edit]

Nominator's rationale: These categories are too small, merging would make them bigger together. --MikutoH talk! 23:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, we do not have a category tree for plurisexual people. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Intersex gay people[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Merge both to intersex gay people as separately they are too small, also based on Category:Non-binary gay people (though it should be noticed that Category:Gay people is a soft redirect). See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Intersex lesbians and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Intersex transgender people. --MikutoH talk! 23:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, we do not have a category tree for gay people. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Marcocappelle. If the intersections are too small, they should be deleted, but the proposed name doesn't fit in the category tree.--Trystan (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meuse-Argonne American Cemetery[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, it only contains the eponymous article and a subcategory, which isn't helpful for navigation. Thd subcategory suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politics of Lorraine[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, Lorraine is meanwhile a defunct administrative division, now part of Grand Est. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omaha people[edit]

Nominator's rationale As there is only one recognized Omaha tribe, the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska (that is the official tribal name on the federal register), change this category's name to match the official name and get rid of the clunky parentheses. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Category:ZeniMax Media stubs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Insufficiently large stub category for ZeniMax Media and its subsidiaries. Most pages are already tagged with at least one genre stub type. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 21:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cartoon Network stubs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Stub category no longer populated enough to warrant retention. As always, stub categories need to have a minimum of 60 articles, but after I detagged a handful of articles that were too long to be tagged as stubs at all this went from 25 to 20. It has existed in its current form since 2011, after being deleted as underpopulated in 2007 -- but was then tagged as underpopulated again in 2018, until that template was deleted at TFD, so it's not entirely clear that it was ever really adequately populated at all.
Even the 20 pages that are here are a bit of a random grab bag, as it's populated mainly by video game or album tie-ins to Cartoon Network programming and/or foreign channels that franchised Cartoon Network or Boomerang branding, rather than things that actually have much to do with the Category:United States television stubs parent -- so it's not at all clear that there are actually very many things that could be added here to get it back over 60 articles again. It's not generally standard practice, at any rate, to stub-tag things for overly specific associations like particular TV networks; WikiProject Cartoon Network already has project templates on the talk pages anyway, so this isn't serving any important purpose that isn't already being served elsewhere. Bearcat (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Modern serif typefaces[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Modern serif typefaces to Category:Didone serif typefaces
Nominator's Rationale: Didone is a more common term for this typeface classification. (Didone (typography)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jothefiredragon (talkcontribs)

Wingate Bulldogs women's basketball‎[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Both of the categories exist for one member, Ginny Boggess. Qwerfjkltalk 16:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battles by location in Germany[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. See also recent precedents. NLeeuw (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Showrunners of animated shows[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I made a mistake when I created this category. We consistently use the term series and not show to describe TV, so it should be changed for consistency. JDDJS (talk to mesee what I've done) 15:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This rename is a good idea and I definitely support it. Using "series" rather than "shows" certainly makes sense. Historyday01 (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arkansas Tech Wonder Boys football seasons[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Category lacks subjects Let'srun (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles of the Byzantine–Bulgarian Wars in Thrace[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. See also recent precedents. NLeeuw (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual or triple merge for now. While the parent categories still exist, we shouldn't remove content from them. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Hence my upmerging step by step approach. NLeeuw (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles involving the Medes[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Each of the battles in this category took place during the existence of the Median kingdom (c. 678 BCE–c. 550 BCE), namely in 614 BCE or later. It is better to categorise battles by states involved than with the people dominating that state, unless they had no state of their own, but the Medes did have this kingdom throughout this period. NLeeuw (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure. The existence of a Median kingdom seems to be controversial. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but only its early existence. By 612 BCE, the Medes became strong enough to overthrow the declining Assyrian Empire in alliance with the Babylonians. However, contemporary scholarship tends to be skeptical about the existence of a united Median kingdom or state, at least for most of the 7th century BCE. I would recommend a close reading of the following paragraph: The Medes reappear in contemporary sources about forty years later in 615 BCE, under the leadership of Cyaxares (....). therefore, the Median kingdom most likely emerged after 627, or possibly already after 631 BCE.
    The battles in this category are all from 614 BCE or later, by which time most scholars agree a Median kingdom existed, led by king Cyaxares. NLeeuw (talk) 05:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Interleague play[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Contents are mostly about historical MLB rivalries, not about interleague play. All of these can be found in Category:Major League Baseball rivalries or in the categories of respective leagues (MLB and NPB). Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2010s in Sidon[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, only one article in this category, which is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge for now without prejudice. NLeeuw (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works set in abandoned buildings and structures[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename, this is follow-up after this earlier discussion, it is a first trial nomination. The word "setting" is only or mainly used in the context of fiction. With non-fiction we use "works about" rather than "works set in". The proposal is to rename the subcategories and purge any non-fiction that is still in them. I don't think there is any non-fiction in the currently nominated subcategory though. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03, Zxcvbnm, RevelationDirect, and Jc37: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment/Question I agree "set" implies fiction. One possible alternative to changing the (potential) scope might be to change the wording. Looking at Category:Television shows by location, which includes tons of allegedly non-fiction reality shows, would Category:Works located in abandoned buildings and structures work as an alternative? (This is a sincere question, I'm open to either approach so long as we follow this trial nomination with renaming the rest.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. @Marcocapelle That prior discussion was based on flawed reasoning. The assumption that setting is not related to non-fiction writing is categorically false. As any English teacher would tell you, literary non-fiction also includes setting as a defining feature (see https://study.com/academy/lesson/literary-nonfiction-essays-diaries-letters-more.html where setting is listed as the third defining element of literary non-fiction). It’s ill advised to move an entire category tree structure that is working, and the tree does include some non-fiction works mixed in with the fiction where appropriate. There are literary non-fiction works that are encyclopedic and as setting is a defining element of those works, they should be categorized by setting. The current structure works well for both fiction and non-fiction literature and I see no reason to start differentiating in this way.4meter4 (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This isn't a strong oppose, because I think I see the reasoning, but opposing because a non-fiction work (or a fiction one, for that matter) can be set in a location, and not be about the location. - jc37 19:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hamas bombers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: "bomber" is not an occupation. User:Namiba 01:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although the category had only 2 members when nominated, it could easily be populated with more. I just added Mohiyedine Sharif, Yahya Ayyash, Samar Sabih, and Nidal Farahat. Most of these were already in Category:Hamas military members. It might be worth re-parenting Category:Hamas bombers to Category:Hamas military members, although that would leave Category:Hamas members by role pretty much empty. I think it is quite a redundant layer anyway; we could Upmerge it to Category:Hamas members instead. NLeeuw (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a redundant layer and we do not have this kind of intersection for other groups.--User:Namiba 00:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Namiba So you agree with Upmerging Category:Hamas members by role to Category:Hamas members, and Re-parenting Category:Hamas bombers to Category:Hamas military members? If so, could you please tag Category:Hamas members by role accordingly, and change your proposal, or add it as an Alt proposal? Thanks in advance!
If you mean something else, please clarify, so we can discuss it. NLeeuw (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 23[edit]

Category:Trans-related suicides[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Based on several categories in Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Transgender-related. --MikutoH talk! 23:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comic book editors[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The term "comic book" is used for periodical comics publications and is not inclusive of manga, webcomics, graphic novels, etc. "Comics editors" is inclusive of all forms of comics. Thematthewmurray (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Those are different industries, don't mix apples and oranges. Rather create "manga editors" in Category:Manga industry and list them there. As for the others, graphic novels may not be the same as comic books, but the industry that makes them is the same one, so there's no problem grouping them together. And are there webcomic editors? isn't that a self-published genre? Cambalachero (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While there have been webcomics editors for years, the rise of webcomic platforms/sites like Webtoon and Tapas mean that they are more prominent than before.
Since you suggested splitting out Japanese editors, I'll mention that the category also currently includes comics editors who worked in the comics industries in Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, Serbia, and the UK. Thematthewmurray (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the industry of webcomics is so developed now, then yes, create a third category for them. As for Japan, Japanese comics are a specific and distinct genre in its own right. Can we say the same of the comics of those other countries? Cambalachero (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are pages for Bande dessinée (Franco-Belgian comics), Brazilian comics, Comics in Mexico, Manhua (Chinese comics), Dutch comics, Serbian comics, and British comics. I am far from an expert in all of these, but I feel that some of them (such as Franco-Belgian comics) are easily as developed as Japanese comics.
I'll also mention that the majority of other categories for comics-related positions use the term "comics." Category:Comics creators, Category:Comics writers, Category:Comics artists, Category:Comics colorists, and Category:Comics inkers. (The one exception is Category:Comic book letterers.) Additionally the subpages are in the same format: Category:Comics writers by nationality. Thematthewmurray (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Kingdom of Luang Phrabang[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Merging is not needed, the subcategory is already in appropriate parents. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:25, 23 May 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:Central African Republic people[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Although most nationality categories are named 'Fooinan people', there are several exceptions: Category:People from Georgia (country), Category:People from Northern Ireland, Category:People from the State of Palestine, as well as almost all subcategories in Category:People by former country and about half of those in Category:People by dependent territory. I think 'People from the Central African Republic' is a much clearer and better name in English than 'Central African Republic people'. Aldij (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "People from Foo" is used where "Fooian people" is not feasiable. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories without CatAutoTOC and friends[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge/delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:

This whole tree needs a little bit of love. I came here to propose a speedy rename from "Foo CatAutoTOC bar" to "Foo Automatic category TOC bar" following a RM at Template talk:Automatic category TOC#Requested move 28 April 2024, but I think this whole tree needs to be simplified. It is so small that diffusing by number of pages in the category is a hindrance to navigation. I will also note that Category:Categories without CatAutoTOC is terribly named: it only contains categories which use {{Category TOC}} or {{Large category TOC}} directly.

I propose we get rid of the tree and replace it with two categories, one for each template: Category:Categories which use Large category TOC without Automatic category TOC and Category:Categories which use Category TOC without Automatic category TOC. Finally, I propose we delete Category:Categories without CatAutoTOC in favor of a hatnote between the two new categories. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Adam Black talkcontributions 16:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only one to use this category really has been banned and there really is no indication what purpose this serve once the data was collected. So agree with proposal. If at any point in the future this or something similar is needed, recreating isn't that difficult. Gonnym (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:16, 23 May 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:Ipswich town preachers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category that is effectively is the same. Mason (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Propose capitalisation: move Category:Ipswich town preachers to Category:Ipswich Town Preachers. When this category entered the jigsaw world of signs, known as wikipedia, it was unclear whether the category should use uppercase letters to initialise not merely Ipswich, but also "Town Preacher". The Oxford Academic use lower case, but local historian John Blatchly goes for uppercase. I think the advantage of this that it is clear that this refers to people who held a formal role, rather than a simply being a wikipedia category that lists Clergy from Ipswich. Often Ipswich Corporation appointed people from elsewhere. Bearing in mind the significance of some of those who occupied this role such as Samuel Ward (minister) or Cave Beck, it would seem appropriate to have such a category. I feel that capitalisation will indicate the category is more formal/historical. Leutha (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I've reverted your unexplained removal of this category from the proposed merge target. How is this category not Clergy from Ipswich? And why is the current category parented by 17th-century clergy. Mason (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen from the discussion above, the category is quite formal. Many people filing this role were not from Ipswich: Samuel Ward (minister) was from Haverhill, Matthew Lawrence (preacher) was from North Lincolnshire, Cave Beck was from London. The references for the Town Preachers are largely consistent from 1604, G. R.Clarke gives a list of 7 before 1604 in his 1830 The history and description of the town and borough of Ipswich : 343 . However only one appears in Blatchly's list in his book on The Town Library of Ipswich (1989): 177 . Any suggestions as regards how to handle the earlier individuals such as Roger Kelke, the Marian exile who returned to become Ipswich Town Preacher from 1560 until 1575, according to Blatchly? ibid : 4 . Leutha (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok... so it sounds like this information would be better served as a list. Categories are supposed to be there to help people navigate between pages. I would *strongly* encourage you to look at how other categories handle clergy from a region.
It seems like you are under the impression that People from a city is only for people who were born from the city. That's too narrow of a definition, as Bishops of CITY/ diocese are placed within the clergy from CITY/REGION etc category. And, so if I am understanding your very long comment, you're added the parent because there's only one example of of a precher from before the 17th century, but you don't speak to what about after the 17th century. Mason (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Oxford University Press Delegate[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non defining. If not merged, it should be renamed to Oxford University Press "delegates" Mason (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unreal Engine 5 games[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Duplicative with Category:Unreal Engine games. No merge required, as all members of the nominated category are in the original already. Each version of Unreal Engine is not independently notable or distinct. -- ferret (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree because Category:Unreal Engine games is very large and spans more than two decades of video games. There isn't much use in knowing that a game was made with "just" Unreal Engine from the point of view of someone reading about the game compared to knowing that it was made in Unreal 5 which tells you a lot more about what you can expect from the game both in terms of graphics and gameplay (that is, within a given specific genre). Similarly, there isn't much use in knowing a game was made in "just" Unreal from the point of view of someone reading about Unreal itslef as nobody develops games in "Unreal Engine." Consider also that the Video Game infobox Engine field usually has the Unreal Engine version listed, not just "Unreal Engine", because just listing "Unreal Engine" is not so useful. Each version of Unreal is a separate piece of software. Also, not all members of the nominated category are in the original already (at least at the time that I added some of them).
As a separate but related point, I feel that all versions of Unreal Engine should be separate articles on Wikipedia. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I propose instead of deleting the category, it should be a sub-category under Category:Unreal Engine games. In fact, I think the all the pages under this category also should be sorted by Unreal Engine type, i.e. UE1, UE2, UE3 and UE4. This rationale is made since the list of games for each Unreal Engine version is deleted, and there should be categories that list by version to clean up Category:Unreal Engine games. Otherwise the alternative is to simply delete Category:Unreal Engine games. ~ Limyx826 (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criteria for categories are stricter than for lists so if lists per version were deleted, categories per version should certainly be deleted as well. Then Category:Unreal Engine games suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1941 junior college football season[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Category lacks subjects. Let'srun (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Member of an established class of categories. Let'srun, this is another obstructive nomination by you. I am getting very close to seeking a remedy for your behavior. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, it is pointless to diffuse junior college seasons by year. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle why is it pointless? I'm not even sure that Category:1941 junior college football season should be a child of Category:1941 college football season instead of a sibling under Category:1941 in American football. That needs to be discussed. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The large amount of these categories contains only one article, this is not helpful for navigation between articles at all. The article in the nominated category is also in Category:Junior college football undefeated seasons, and while I am not sure if "undefeated" is a defining characteristic, at least this category does provide the opportunity to navigate easily to a significant number of related articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female drug traffickers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between gender, criminal, and specific kind of crime committed. I don't think that this holds up under WP:EGRS. Mason (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, how is this any less defining than other subcategories of Category:Female criminals? AHI-3000 (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick: What do you think of this? AHI-3000 (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists assassins[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's only one actual page in here along with a redirect. Merge for now, as this page isn't very helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 02:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge per nom: I created this category, but as the nom points out it doesn't seem to be a useful intersection. GCarty (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dual merge per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 20:50, 23 May 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:Sexual violence in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one page in here, which makes it difficult to navigation between the various related pages in the parent categories. Mason (talk) 00:50, 23 May 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:The Legend of Zelda (TV series)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Works based on The Legend of Zelda. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main and only article for this category was merged. The redirect category could be merged into Category:Works based on The Legend of Zelda, but I am not sure on that. (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:30, 23 May 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.

Older discussions[edit]

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