Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions
If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes. |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Speedy renaming and merging
[edit]If the category and desired change do not match one of the criteria mentioned in C2, do not list it here. Instead, list it in the main CFD section.
If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.
Use the following format on a new line at the beginning of the list:
* [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~
If the current name should be redirected rather than deleted, use:
* REDIRECT [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~
To note that human action is required, e.g. updating a template that populates the category, use:
* NO BOTS [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~
Remember to tag the category page with: {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}
A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 00:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC). Currently, there are 13,307 open requests (. )
Administrators and page movers: Do not use the "Move" tab to move categories listed here!Categories are processed following the 48-hour waiting period and are moved by a bot. |
Current requests
[edit]Please add new requests at the top of the list, preferably with a link to the parent category (in case of C2C) or relevant article (in case of C2D).
- Category:1855 in animation to Category:1850s in animation, Category:1855 in mass media, and Category:1855 in the arts – C2F: per eponymous articles –Aidan721 (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:1856 in animation to Category:1850s in animation, Category:1856 in mass media, and Category:1856 in the arts
- Category:1857 in animation to Category:1850s in animation, Category:1857 in mass media, and Category:1857 in the arts
- Category:1858 in animation to Category:1850s in animation, Category:1858 in mass media, and Category:1858 in the arts
- Category:1859 in animation to Category:1850s in animation, Category:1859 in mass media, and Category:1859 in the arts
- Category:1860 in animation to Category:1860s in animation, Category:1860 in mass media, and Category:1860 in the arts
- Category:1861 in animation to Category:1860s in animation, Category:1861 in mass media, and Category:1861 in the arts
- Category:1862 in animation to Category:1860s in animation, Category:1862 in mass media, and Category:1862 in the arts
- Category:1863 in animation to Category:1860s in animation, Category:1863 in mass media, and Category:1863 in the arts
- Category:1864 in animation to Category:1860s in animation, Category:1864 in mass media, and Category:1864 in the arts
- Category:1865 in animation to Category:1860s in animation, Category:1865 in mass media, and Category:1865 in the arts
- Category:1866 in animation to Category:1860s in animation, Category:1866 in mass media, and Category:1866 in the arts
- Category:1867 in animation to Category:1860s in animation, Category:1867 in mass media, and Category:1867 in the arts
- Category:1868 in animation to Category:1860s in animation, Category:1868 in mass media, and Category:1868 in the arts
- Category:1869 in animation to Category:1860s in animation, Category:1869 in mass media, and Category:1869 in the arts
- Category:1870 in animation to Category:1870s in animation, Category:1870 in mass media, and Category:1870 in the arts
- Category:1871 in animation to Category:1870s in animation, Category:1871 in mass media, and Category:1871 in the arts
- Category:1872 in animation to Category:1870s in animation, Category:1872 in mass media, and Category:1872 in the arts
- Category:1873 in animation to Category:1870s in animation, Category:1873 in mass media, and Category:1873 in the arts
- Category:1874 in animation to Category:1870s in animation, Category:1874 in mass media, and Category:1874 in the arts
- Category:1875 in animation to Category:1870s in animation, Category:1875 in mass media, and Category:1875 in the arts
- Category:1876 in animation to Category:1870s in animation, Category:1876 in mass media, and Category:1876 in the arts
- Category:1877 in animation to Category:1870s in animation, Category:1877 in mass media, and Category:1877 in the arts
- Category:1878 in animation to Category:1870s in animation, Category:1878 in mass media, and Category:1878 in the arts
- Category:1879 in animation to Category:1870s in animation, Category:1879 in mass media, and Category:1879 in the arts
- Category:1880 in animation to Category:1880s in animation, Category:1880 in mass media, and Category:1880 in the arts
- Category:1881 in animation to Category:1880s in animation, Category:1881 in mass media, and Category:1881 in the arts
- Category:1882 in animation to Category:1880s in animation, Category:1882 in mass media, and Category:1882 in the arts
- Category:1883 in animation to Category:1880s in animation, Category:1883 in mass media, and Category:1883 in the arts
- Category:1884 in animation to Category:1880s in animation, Category:1884 in mass media, and Category:1884 in the arts
- Category:1885 in animation to Category:1880s in animation, Category:1885 in mass media, and Category:1885 in the arts
- Category:1886 in animation to Category:1880s in animation, Category:1886 in mass media, and Category:1886 in the arts
- Category:1887 in animation to Category:1880s in animation, Category:1887 in mass media, and Category:1887 in the arts
- Category:1888 in animation to Category:1880s in animation, Category:1888 in mass media, and Category:1888 in the arts
- Category:1889 in animation to Category:1880s in animation, Category:1889 in mass media, and Category:1889 in the arts
- Category:1890 in animation to Category:1890s in animation, Category:1890 in mass media, and Category:1890 in the arts
- Category:1891 in animation to Category:1890s in animation, Category:1891 in mass media, and Category:1891 in the arts
- Category:1892 in animation to Category:1890s in animation, Category:1892 in mass media, and Category:1892 in the arts
- Category:1893 in animation to Category:1890s in animation, Category:1893 in mass media, and Category:1893 in the arts
- Category:1894 in animation to Category:1890s in animation, Category:1894 in mass media, and Category:1894 in the arts
- Category:1895 in animation to Category:1890s in animation, Category:1895 in mass media, and Category:1895 in the arts
- Category:1896 in animation to Category:1890s in animation, Category:1896 in mass media, and Category:1896 in the arts
- Category:1897 in animation to Category:1890s in animation, Category:1897 in mass media, and Category:1897 in the arts
- Category:1898 in animation to Category:1890s in animation, Category:1898 in mass media, and Category:1898 in the arts
- Category:1899 in animation to Category:1890s in animation, Category:1899 in mass media, and Category:1899 in the arts
- Category:1900 in animation to Category:1900s in animation, Category:1900 in mass media, and Category:1900 in the arts
- Category:1901 in animation to Category:1900s in animation, Category:1901 in mass media, and Category:1901 in the arts
- Category:1902 in animation to Category:1900s in animation, Category:1902 in mass media, and Category:1902 in the arts
- Category:1903 in animation to Category:1900s in animation, Category:1903 in mass media, and Category:1903 in the arts
- Category:1904 in animation to Category:1900s in animation, Category:1904 in mass media, and Category:1904 in the arts
- Category:1905 in animation to Category:1900s in animation, Category:1905 in mass media, and Category:1905 in the arts
- Category:United States Trade Representatives to Category:United States trade representatives – C2B, per MOS:JOBTITLES. Woko Sapien (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:June 1874 events by country to Category:June 1874 by country – C2C: With parent categories of Category:June by year/Category:July by year/Category:August by year/Category:September by year and per the relevant recent CfD. This should be the last batch of the months by year, but there may still be more misc cleanup that wasn't in these relevant sub categories. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Sports players in New Westminster by team to Category:Sportspeople in New Westminster by team – C2C. User:Namiba 18:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Newfoundland Growlers basketball players to Category:Newfoundland Growlers (basketball) players – C2D: Newfoundland Growlers (basketball) is the article name and there is already Category:Newfoundland Growlers players for the ice hockey players. User:Namiba 17:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:X Games athletes to Category:X Games competitors – C2C: other Category:Competitors at multi-sport events categories Kaffet i halsen (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Personal secretaries to the President of the United States to Category:Personal secretaries to the president of the United States – C2B, per MOS:JOBTITLES. Woko Sapien (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Assistants to the President of the United States to Category:Assistants to the president of the United States
- Category:Military aides to the President of the United States to Category:Military aides to the president of the United States
- Category:Physicians to the President of the United States to Category:Physicians to the president of the United States
- Category:Senior advisors to the President of Afghanistan to Category:Senior advisors to the president of Afghanistan
- Category:Advisers to the President of Russia to Category:Advisers to the president of Russia
- Category:Aides to the President of Russia to Category:Aides to the president of Russia
- Category:Ministers in Assistance to the President of Marshall Islands to Category:Ministers in assistance to the president of Marshall Islands
- Category:1275 in art to Category:1275 in the arts and Category:Years of the 13th century in art – C2F: per eponymous articles –Aidan721 (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:1310 in art to Category:1310 in the arts and Category:Years of the 14th century in art
- Category:1561 in art to Category:1561 in the arts, Category:1560s in art, and Category:Years of the 16th century in art
- Category:1574 in art to Category:1574 in the arts, Category:1570s in art, and Category:Years of the 16th century in art
- Category:1587 in art to Category:1587 in the arts, Category:1580s in art, and Category:Years of the 16th century in art
- Category:1589 in art to Category:1589 in the arts, Category:1580s in art, and Category:Years of the 16th century in art
- Category:1613 in art to Category:1613 in the arts, Category:1610s in art, and Category:Years of the 17th century in art
- Category:1679 in art to Category:1679 in the arts, Category:1670s in art, and Category:Years of the 17th century in art
- Category:1680 in art to Category:1680 in the arts, Category:1680s in art, and Category:Years of the 17th century in art
- Category:1681 in art to Category:1681 in the arts, Category:1680s in art, and Category:Years of the 17th century in art
- Category:1683 in art to Category:1683 in the arts, Category:1680s in art, and Category:Years of the 17th century in art
- Category:1691 in art to Category:1691 in the arts, Category:1690s in art, and Category:Years of the 17th century in art
- Category:1693 in art to Category:1693 in the arts, Category:1690s in art, and Category:Years of the 17th century in art
- Category:1696 in art to Category:1696 in the arts, Category:1690s in art, and Category:Years of the 17th century in art
- Category:1698 in art to Category:1698 in the arts, Category:1690s in art, and Category:Years of the 17th century in art
- Category:1699 in art to Category:1699 in the arts, Category:1690s in art, and Category:Years of the 17th century in art
- Category:1700 in art to Category:1700 in the arts, Category:1700s in art, and Category:Years of the 17th century in art
- Category:1701 in art to Category:1701 in the arts, Category:1700s in art, and Category:Years of the 18th century in art
- Category:1702 in art to Category:1702 in the arts, Category:1700s in art, and Category:Years of the 18th century in art
- Category:1703 in art to Category:1703 in the arts, Category:1700s in art, and Category:Years of the 18th century in art
- Category:1704 in art to Category:1704 in the arts, Category:1700s in art, and Category:Years of the 18th century in art
- Category:1705 in art to Category:1705 in the arts, Category:1700s in art, and Category:Years of the 18th century in art
- Category:1706 in art to Category:1706 in the arts, Category:1700s in art, and Category:Years of the 18th century in art
- Category:1707 in art to Category:1707 in the arts, Category:1700s in art, and Category:Years of the 18th century in art
- Category:1712 in art to Category:1712 in the arts, Category:1710s in art, and Category:Years of the 18th century in art
- Category:1713 in art to Category:1713 in the arts, Category:1710s in art, and Category:Years of the 18th century in art
- Category:1718 in art to Category:1718 in the arts, Category:1710s in art, and Category:Years of the 18th century in art
- Category:1721 in art to Category:1721 in the arts, Category:1720s in art, and Category:Years of the 18th century in art
- Category:1726 in art to Category:1726 in the arts, Category:1720s in art, and Category:Years of the 18th century in art
- Category:1734 in art to Category:1734 in the arts, Category:1730s in art, and Category:Years of the 18th century in art
- Category:Sporting teams based on the Gold Coast, Queensland to Category:Sports clubs and teams on the Gold Coast, Queensland – C2C: Category:Sports clubs and teams in Australia by populated place Kaffet i halsen (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Sports clubs and teams in Kara to Category:Sports clubs and teams in Kara, Togo – C2D: Kara, Togo Kaffet i halsen (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Sports teams in Astana to Category:Sports clubs and teams in Astana – C2C: Category:Sports clubs and teams by populated place Kaffet i halsen (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Ctrip people to Category:Trip.com Group people - C2D: Trip.com Group Ђидо (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Members of the National Council (Slovakia) 2012-2016 to Category:Members of the National Council (Slovakia) 2012–2016 – C2A. FromCzech (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Cissomela to Category:Meliphagidae – C2F: Cissomela is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Eulabeornis to Category:Rallidae – C2F: Eulabeornis is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Canirallus to Category:Rallidae – C2F: Canirallus is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Blossom (TV series) episode redirects to lists to Category:Blossom (American TV series) episode redirects to lists – C2D. Main article was moved to Blossom (American TV series) a month ago, uncontested. Note - I erroneously moved the category members to the new category name before I realised that I couldn't rename the category myself. Jameboy (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Antigone (genus) to Category:Antigone (bird) – C2D. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Pavo (genus) to Category:Pavo (bird) – C2D.
- Category:Penelope (genus) to Category:Penelope (bird) – C2D.
- Oppose these
twothree. These are in fact names of genera. They are bird genera, but the more specific disambiguation is better here. C2D does not mean categories must match their parent articles. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose these
- Category:Aburria to Category:Cracidae – C2F: Aburria is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Metropolitans of Moscow and all Russia to Category:Metropolitans of Moscow and all Rus' – C2D: Main article Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus'. Before 1589, the patriarchs were called 'metropolitans'. "Russia" is an anachronistic mistranslation of Руси (Rusi > of Rus'). Only Росси́я (Rossíja) and its variations should be translated as "Russia". NLeeuw (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:1546 in music to Category:1546 in the arts and Category:1540s in music – C2F –Aidan721 (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:1460 in science to Category:1460 and Category:1460s in science – C2F –Aidan721 (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:October 2012 events by continent to Category:October 2012 by continent – C2C. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Columbina (genus) to Category:Columbina (bird) – C2D. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Name is that of a genus. C2D does not mean category names must match article names. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Macropsalis to Category:Caprimulgidae – C2F: Macropsalis is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Aceros to Category:Hornbills – C2F: Aceros is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Leucippus (bird) to Category:Hummingbirds – C2F: Leucippus is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Amazilis to Category:Hummingbirds – C2F: Amazilis is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- REDIRECT Category:1906 events in Spain by month to Category:1906 in Spain by month – C2C: Europe categories events categories per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 14#Category:Events by month BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 20:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Schoutedenapus to Category:Apodidae – C2F: Schoutedenapus is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Apus (genus) to Category:Apus (bird) – C2D. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Name is that of a genus. C2D does not mean category names must match article names. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Cereopsis to Category:Anserinae – C2F: Cereopsis is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Spatula (genus) to Category:Spatula (bird) – C2D
- Category:Aix (genus) to Category:Aix (bird) – C2D
- Category:Clanga (genus) to Category:Clanga (bird) – C2D
- Category:Aquila (genus) to Category:Aquila (bird) – C2D
- Oppose these four. Name is that of a genus. C2D does not mean category names must match article names. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Megalapteryx to Category:Megalapteryginae – C2F: Megalapteryx is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Principal Private Secretaries to the Prime Minister to Category:Principal private secretaries to the prime minister – C2B, per MOS:JOBTITLES. Woko Sapien (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister of Pakistan to Category:Principal secretaries to the prime minister of Pakistan – C2B, pluralize and conform to MOS:JOBTITLES. Woko Sapien (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Television series created by Edward Allen Bernero to Category:Television series created by Ed Bernero – C2D. Gonnym (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Films produced by Toshio Suzuki (producer) to Category:Films produced by Toshio Suzuki – C2D. Gonnym (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Mayors of the Gold Coast to Category:Mayors of the Gold Coast, Queensland – C2D (Gold Coast, Queensland) Graham87 (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Boxers from the Gold Coast to Category:Boxers from the Gold Coast, Queensland – C2D (Gold Coast, Queensland) Graham87 (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Mixed martial artists from the Gold Coast to Category:Mixed martial artists from the Gold Coast, Queensland – C2D (Gold Coast, Queensland) Graham87 (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Soccer players from Gold Coast, Queensland to Category:Soccer players from the Gold Coast, Queensland – C2C (Category:People from the Gold Coast, Queensland) Graham87 (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Swimmers from the Gold Coast to Category:Swimmers from the Gold Coast, Queensland – C2D (Gold Coast, Queensland) Graham87 (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Tennis people from the Gold Coast to Category:Tennis players from the Gold Coast, Queensland – C2C/C2D (Category:Australian tennis players, Gold Coast, Queensland) Graham87 (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Executed Roman royalty to Category:Executed ancient Roman royalty – C2E. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:BioArtists to Category:Bioartists – C2D. Frost 09:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:BioArt to Category:Bioart – C2D. Frost 09:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Radonjić-Rajićević family to Category:Radonjić–Rajićević family We use en-dashes for categories like this. – C2A. Mike Selinker (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Integrated Resorts by Country to Category:Integrated resorts by country – C2A _dk (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Integrated Resorts to Category:Integrated resorts
- Category:Integrated Resorts in Australia to Category:Integrated resorts in Australia
- Category:Integrated Resorts in China to Category:Integrated resorts in China
- Category:Integrated Resorts in Macau to Category:Integrated resorts in Macau
- Category:Integrated Resorts in Cyprus to Category:Integrated resorts in Cyprus
- Category:Integrated Resorts in Malaysia to Category:Integrated resorts in Malaysia
- Category:Integrated Resorts in Singapore to Category:Integrated resorts in Singapore
- Category:Integrated Resorts in the Bahamas to Category:Integrated resorts in the Bahamas
- Category:Integrated Resorts in the Philippines to Category:Integrated resorts in the Philippines
- Category:Integrated Resorts in Cebu City to Category:Integrated resorts in Cebu City
- Category:Integrated Resorts in Manila to Category:Integrated resorts in Manila
- Category:Integrated Resorts in the United Arab Emirates to Category:Integrated resorts in the United Arab Emirates
- Category:Integrated Resorts in the United States to Category:Integrated resorts in the United States
- Category:Integrated Resorts in the United States by state to Category:Integrated resorts in the United States by state
- Category:Integrated Resorts in California to Category:Integrated resorts in California
- Category:Integrated Resorts in Connecticut to Category:Integrated resorts in Connecticut
- Category:Integrated Resorts in Florida to Category:Integrated resorts in Florida
- Category:Integrated Resorts in Massachusetts to Category:Integrated resorts in Massachusetts
- Category:Integrated Resorts in Michigan to Category:Integrated resorts in Michigan
- Category:Integrated Resorts in Detroit to Category:Integrated resorts in Detroit
- Category:Integrated Resorts in Nevada to Category:Integrated resorts in Nevada
- Category:Integrated Resorts in Reno to Category:Integrated resorts in Reno
- Category:Integrated Resorts in the Las Vegas Valley to Category:Integrated resorts in the Las Vegas Valley
- Category:Defunct Integrated Resorts in the Las Vegas Valley to Category:Defunct integrated resorts in the Las Vegas Valley
- Category:Integrated Resorts in New Jersey to Category:Integrated resorts in New Jersey
- Category:Integrated Resorts in Atlantic City to Category:Integrated resorts in Atlantic City
- Category:Defunct Integrated Resorts in Atlantic City to Category:Defunct integrated resorts in Atlantic City
- Category:Integrated Resorts in New York to Category:Integrated resorts in New York
- @Underbar dk: shouldn't it become "casino hotels", C2D per Casino hotel? Marcocapelle (talk) 10:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: As far as I understand, an integrated resort is a type of casino hotel, and Category:Casino hotels already exists as a supercat of Category:Integrated Resorts _dk (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd like to see them get merged to the Casino hotels tree as well, seems very much overlapping. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: As far as I understand, an integrated resort is a type of casino hotel, and Category:Casino hotels already exists as a supercat of Category:Integrated Resorts _dk (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Underbar dk: shouldn't it become "casino hotels", C2D per Casino hotel? Marcocapelle (talk) 10:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would have no problem renaming these categories to have a lower case r instead. That’s fine by me. The hospitality industry has changed and this term is now pretty much the norm, which is why I added these categories to begin with. I felt that the terminology was not up to date with the state of the industry. But the lower case r is fine and if there is precedent for it, then it’s fine by me. NevadaExpert (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, and of course I do not oppose the lower case r either. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Ranodon to Category:Asiatic salamanders – C2F: Ranodon is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Indotyphlidae to Category:Grandisoniidae – C2D. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Deaflympic snowboarders by year to Category:Snowboards at the Deaflympic by year – C2C: Match subcategories and standard naming style of (foo) at the (event) by year. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is this the correct destination? Snowboard(er)s and Deaflympic(s). It is also not the format of Foolympic fooers by year (e.g. Category:Winter Olympics competitors by sport and year). Kaffet i halsen (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Opposed requests
[edit]- Category:South American Games competitors by year to Category:Competitors at the South American Games by year – C2C: Match subcategories and standard naming style of (foo) at the (event) by year. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Mediterranean Games competitors by year to Category:Competitors at the Mediterranean Games by year – C2C: Match subcategories and standard naming style of (foo) at the (event) by year. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Maccabiah Games competitors by year to Category:Competitors at the Maccabiah Games by year – C2C: Match subcategories and standard naming style of (foo) at the (event) by year. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:SEA Games competitors by year to Category:Competitors at the SEA Games by year – C2C: Match subcategories and standard naming style of (foo) at the (event) by year. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:European Games competitors by year to Category:Competitors at the European Games by year – C2C: Match subcategories and standard naming style of (foo) at the (event) by year. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Deaflympic competitors by year to Category:Competitors at the Deaflympic by year – C2C: Match subcategories and standard naming style of (foo) at the (event) by year. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is this the correct destination? Deaflympic(s). It is also not the format of Foolympic competitors by year (e.g. Category:Olympic competitors by year). Kaffet i halsen (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Pan American Games competitors by year to Category:Competitors at the Pan American Games by year – C2C: Match subcategories and standard naming style of (foo) at the (event) by year. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Commonwealth Games competitors by year to Category:Competitors at the Commonwealth Games by year – C2C: Match subcategories and standard naming style of (foo) at the (event) by year. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose all nine, this is not the case in Category:Competitors at multi-sport events. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Ansonia (genus) to Category:Ansonia (frog) – C2D. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Name is that of a genus. C2D does not require category names to match article names. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Television episodes about illegal drug trade to Category:Television episodes about the illegal drug trade - C2B/C2C: Category:Works about the illegal drug trade, etc. DoubleCross (‡) 16:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Television series about illegal drug trade to Category:Television series about the illegal drug trade - C2B/C2C. DoubleCross (‡) 16:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose the above two, one can also argue that the Works should be renamed the other way around. There is no clear standard. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Canadian masters athletes to Category:Canadian masters track and field athletes – C2C: Category:Canadian track and field athletes Kaffet i halsen (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, @Kaffet i halsen the issue is that athletics and track and field don't have the same meaning, we have separate wiki pages for both terms. For example marathon runners may belong in Category:Canadian masters athletes but they're not track and field athletes per se. --Habst (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I find Category:Canadian marathon runners under Category:Canadian runners under Category:Canadian track and field athletes. In what way does masters marathon runners differ? This is the most recent discussion about the usage of (track and field) athletes for American/Canadian (as American is listed below). Kaffet i halsen (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Kaffet i halsen, all runners are track and field athletes, and all marathoners are runners, but not all marathoners are track and field athletes. This is nonsensical logically, but it's accurate linguistically in the way these words are currently used. To eliminate all confusion, I think that most American English "track and field" categories should be renamed to "track and field, cross country, or road racing" one day. --Habst (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, unless that is brought up to discussion I meanwhile don't understand why there shall be a difference in between Category:Canadian athletes and Category:Canadian masters athletes. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Kaffet i halsen, all runners are track and field athletes, and all marathoners are runners, but not all marathoners are track and field athletes. This is nonsensical logically, but it's accurate linguistically in the way these words are currently used. To eliminate all confusion, I think that most American English "track and field" categories should be renamed to "track and field, cross country, or road racing" one day. --Habst (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I find Category:Canadian marathon runners under Category:Canadian runners under Category:Canadian track and field athletes. In what way does masters marathon runners differ? This is the most recent discussion about the usage of (track and field) athletes for American/Canadian (as American is listed below). Kaffet i halsen (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose there is an entire tree of Category:Masters athletes. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but this WP:ENGVAR shift athletes/track and field athletes also occurs in its siblings Category:Athletes by nationality, Category:Olympic athletes (track and field) by country, and alike. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, @Kaffet i halsen the issue is that athletics and track and field don't have the same meaning, we have separate wiki pages for both terms. For example marathon runners may belong in Category:Canadian masters athletes but they're not track and field athletes per se. --Habst (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:American masters athletes to Category:American masters track and field athletes – C2C: Category:American track and field athletes Kaffet i halsen (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, see Category:Canadian masters athletes above. --Habst (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Soviet avant-garde to Category:Soviet avant-garde artists – C2C: parent is Soviet artists SMasonGarrison 23:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose speedy: There are also the sibling categories (within Category:Avant-garde art) Category:Russian avant-garde, Category:Serbian avant-garde and Category:Ukrainian avant-garde to consider. Ham II (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
On hold pending other discussion
[edit]- Category:Possibly fictional pirates to Category:Pirates whose existence is disputed – C2C: parent is People whose existence is disputed SMasonGarrison 06:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose speedy There are fare more subcategories of Category:People whose existence is disputed that use "Possibly fictional" than "whose existence is disputed", and therefore it's not a clear convention to apply C2C. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Those are all being renamed to match this parent. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 19#Category:Possibly fictional people from Europe SMasonGarrison 06:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- In that case we should wait until that is concluded and if it does then we can process this. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Those are all being renamed to match this parent. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 19#Category:Possibly fictional people from Europe SMasonGarrison 06:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose speedy There are fare more subcategories of Category:People whose existence is disputed that use "Possibly fictional" than "whose existence is disputed", and therefore it's not a clear convention to apply C2C. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Stainton, south Cumbria to Category:Stainton, Westmorland and Furness – C2D: Match Stainton, Westmorland and Furness. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose ambiguous with Stainton, Dacre, see User talk:Hey man im josh#Stainton. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Postpone until we know the result of the proposed move of Stainton, Westmorland and Furness. Grutness...wha? 03:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- That RM closed as moved to Stainton (near Kendal). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Moved to full discussion
[edit]- Category:Blandford, Massachusetts to Category:Towns in Massachusetts and Category:Towns in Hampden County, Massachusetts – C2F: per eponymous articles –Aidan721 (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Bernardston, Massachusetts to Category:Towns in Massachusetts and Category:Towns in Franklin County, Massachusetts
- Category:Bellingham, Massachusetts to Category:Towns in Massachusetts and Category:Towns in Norfolk County, Massachusetts
- Category:Avon, Massachusetts to Category:Towns in Massachusetts and Category:Towns in Norfolk County, Massachusetts
- Category:Alford, Massachusetts to Category:Towns in Massachusetts and Category:Towns in Berkshire County, Massachusetts
- Consistency in the category structure outweighs the narrow reading of C2F. All 351 municipalities should have a category page. See WP:5P5. MetricHistory (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- MetricHistory I don't think that the category structure is consistent in ignoring C2F Category:Colrain, Massachusetts, Category:East Brookfield, Massachusetts, Category:Goshen, Massachusetts, Category:Granville, Massachusetts and Category:Heath, Massachusetts, etc don't exist. TSventon (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. Objections were raised before I could achieve consistency. There are 351 municipalities, and I believe each should have a category page. The reason that should be true is to allow other elements of the category structure to achieve consistency. The pieces of the puzzle cannot lock together when pieces are missing. Having holes in the top level of a tree structure means you will have holes further down the chain. The fact that I ceased adding these alleged "violations" when asked should not be used against me by saying that I failed to add more "violations" thus achieving a consistent ignorance of the "rule". Let's not lose the forest for all the darn trees. MetricHistory (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- MetricHistory I don't think that the category structure is consistent in ignoring C2F Category:Colrain, Massachusetts, Category:East Brookfield, Massachusetts, Category:Goshen, Massachusetts, Category:Granville, Massachusetts and Category:Heath, Massachusetts, etc don't exist. TSventon (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Consistency in the category structure outweighs the narrow reading of C2F. All 351 municipalities should have a category page. See WP:5P5. MetricHistory (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Moved to full discussion. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Canadian Dames Commander of the Order of the British Empire to Category:Canadian dames – C2C: to match sister categories in Category:Canadian recipients of British titles and Category:Dames by country. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Omnis Scientia: do you mean rename to Category:Canadian dames Commander of the Order of the British Empire? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle. No. Since there are only two Canadian women with articles who are dames, making distinction between which order is pointless. Since Canada does not have a system of titles like this, there aren't likely to be more dames. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Omnis Scientia: ok, but I don't think that is speediable. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle. No. Since there are only two Canadian women with articles who are dames, making distinction between which order is pointless. Since Canada does not have a system of titles like this, there aren't likely to be more dames. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Moved to full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Omnis Scientia: do you mean rename to Category:Canadian dames Commander of the Order of the British Empire? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:State of Palestine to Category:Palestine (over disambiguation) and subcategories – C2D per Palestine following the move of the country article at this RM. Note that several of the targets are filled by disambiguation pages from when Palestine was occupied by what is now at Palestine (disambiguation). Timrollpickering (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- This should probably go to full discussion. Per WP:C2D:
it generally does not apply to proposals to remove a disambiguator from the category name, even when the main article is the primary topic of its name, i.e. it does not contain a disambiguator
. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose speedy per above. Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 16:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- This should probably go to full discussion. Per WP:C2D:
- Moved to full discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 9#Palestine. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:American Masters Athlete that competed in Olympics to Category:American Olympic masters athletes – C2A: Title case, grammar Habst (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The proposed title gives the impression that they were masters while they were at the Olympics or competed in an Olympic masters competition, which is not the case – they have been at the Olympics for any NOC and they are American master athletes, which probably is reason for deletion per WP:NONDEF. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agree with above. A rename is misleading. And yeah this should probably be deleted. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Aidan721 @Kaffet i halsen, that's fine, but rather than being deleted it should be down-merged into Category:American masters athletes and a subcat of Category:Olympic track and field athletes for the United States. --Habst (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Habst, Aidan721, and Kaffet i halsen: feel free to start a fresh discussion at full CfD aimed at merging or deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Aidan721 @Kaffet i halsen, that's fine, but rather than being deleted it should be down-merged into Category:American masters athletes and a subcat of Category:Olympic track and field athletes for the United States. --Habst (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Moved to full discussion. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- These are very special / unique individuals that competed as an Olympian, and were capable of continuing to compete later as a Masters athlete. Many Olympians have attempted to continue as a Masters but were unable (due to past injuries or other reasons). Recommend: to not change.
- [Side note: Not part of this conversation: Occasionally the individual has been a both at the same time.] PlainDonut (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Current discussions
[edit]January 30
[edit]NEW NOMINATIONS
[edit]January 29
[edit]Category:Recreation by period
[edit]- Propose manually merging Category:Recreation by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Categories by century
- Propose manually merging Category:Recreation by decade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Categories by decade
- Propose manually merging Category:Recreation by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Categories by year
- Propose manually merging Category:Recreation by period (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Categories by period
- Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer and not exactly the most defining intersection between these topics. Manually merge since many of the subcategories are already in subcategories of that tree. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
eponymous Massachusetts categories
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Blandford, Massachusetts (1) to Category:Towns in Massachusetts and Category:Towns in Hampden County, Massachusetts
- Propose merging Category:Bernardston, Massachusetts (1) to Category:Towns in Massachusetts and Category:Towns in Franklin County, Massachusetts
- Propose merging Category:Bellingham, Massachusetts (1) to Category:Towns in Massachusetts and Category:Towns in Norfolk County, Massachusetts
- Propose merging Category:Avon, Massachusetts (1) to Category:Towns in Massachusetts and Category:Towns in Norfolk County, Massachusetts
- Propose merging Category:Alford, Massachusetts (1) to Category:Towns in Massachusetts and Category:Towns in Berkshire County, Massachusetts
- Nominator's rationale: I can't believe these got opposed at speedy, but here we are... All the nominated categories contain a single eponymous article of the same name and were recently created by a single user. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Copy of speedy discussion
|
---|
|
- @MetricHistory and TSventon: pinging participants from the speedy discussion. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Dorrien and Smith-Dorrien family
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Dorrien and Smith-Dorrien family to Category:Smith-Dorrien family
- Nominator's rationale: This is a family of Dorriens, Smiths, Smith-Dorriens, and Dorrien-Smiths. We should pick one. The most are Smith-Dorriens, with four. Mike Selinker (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- No particular objection - seems like a more sensible option. Not only were there Smith-Dorriens and Dorrien-Smiths, but also Smith-Dorrien-Smiths. Cnbrb (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- HAHAHAHA. Mike Selinker (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- No particular objection - seems like a more sensible option. Not only were there Smith-Dorriens and Dorrien-Smiths, but also Smith-Dorrien-Smiths. Cnbrb (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Magical superheroes / supervillains
[edit]To start off with, just as in professional wrestling, a hero can do a face turn to a villain/"heel" (and vice-versa). So splitting these is subjective WP:OR.
Besides that, all of the category members are comics characters, which should already be in Category:Comics characters who use magic or one of its subcats. Most of these will end up in the DC or Marvel subcats. - jc37 12:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge all as nom. - jc37 12:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- If merged, then a manual merge is needed, because most articles are already in the DC or Marvel subcat. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Television shows about the Eurovision Song Contest
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:OCASSOC Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep, WP:OCASSOC does not apply, about something is much stronger than related to something. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Rajasthan Rashtriya Loktantrik Party politician stubs
[edit]- Propose deleting Category:Rajasthan Rashtriya Loktantrik Party politician stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Template:Rajasthan-RLP-politician-stub
- Nominator's rationale: delete, a far too small stub category. The two articles should be added to Category:Rajasthan politician stubs. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Rashtriya Loktantrik Party politicians from Rajasthan
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: No need for this category because Rashtriya Loktantrik Party category already exists and this party is only based in Rajasthan and not other states so we do not specifically need to mention Rajasthan in category. TheSlumPanda (talk) 06:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- When the deletion in the nomination above this one goes ahead this category will be empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Ashbyia
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Ashbyia to Category:Meliphagidae
- Nominator's rationale: Ashbyia is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Dasyornithidae
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Dasyornithidae to Category:Meliphagoidea
- Nominator's rationale: Dasyornithidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Irenidae
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Irenidae to Category:Passeri
- Nominator's rationale: Irenidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Chaetopidae
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Chaetopidae to Category:Passeri
- Nominator's rationale: Chaetopidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Atrichornithidae
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Atrichornithidae to Category:Passeri
- Nominator's rationale: Atrichornithidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Nyctibiidae
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Nyctibiidae to Category:Nyctibiiformes
- Nominator's rationale: Nyctibiidae is the sole member of the monotypic order Nyctibiiformes. Normally I'd propose merging the higher taxon, but in this case I think Category:Nyctibiiformes should be kept for consistency with the rest of Category:Birds by classification. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Crex
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Crex to Category:Rallidae
- Nominator's rationale: Crex is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Psophiidae
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Psophiidae to Category:Gruiformes
- Nominator's rationale: Psophiidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
January 28
[edit]Category:Otidiphabinae
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Otidiphabinae to Category:Columbidae
- Nominator's rationale: Otidiphabinae is a monogeneric subfamily. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Claravis (bird)
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Claravis (bird) to Category:Columbidae
- Nominator's rationale: Claravis is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Noddies (tern)
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Noddies (tern) to Category:Anous
- Nominator's rationale: These categories are overlapping – noddy is the common name for members of the genus Anous. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Stiltia
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Stiltia to Category:Glareolidae
- Nominator's rationale: Stiltia is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Chionidae
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Chionidae to Category:Chionidi
- Nominator's rationale: Chionidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Ibidorhynchidae
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Ibidorhynchidae to Category:Charadrii
- Nominator's rationale: Ibidorhynchidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Haematopodidae
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Haematopodidae to Category:Charadrii
- Nominator's rationale: Haematopodidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Upupidae
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Upupidae to Category:Upupi
- Nominator's rationale: Upupidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Bucorvidae
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Bucorvidae to Category:Buceroti
- Nominator's rationale: Bucorvidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Rhinoplax
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Rhinoplax to Category:Bucerotidae
- Nominator's rationale: Rhinoplax is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Fictional alchemists
[edit]This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_10#Category:Fictional_witches_and_wizards.
Just because someone using magic used some material components, editors label them "alchemists". This is WP:OR.
To quote: Alchemy in art and entertainment: "In twentieth and twenty-first century examples, alchemists are generally presented in a more romantic or mystic light, and often little distinction is made between alchemy, magic, and witchcraft. Alchemy has become a common theme in fantasy fiction."
And many of the characters already are in other subcats of the target (WP:OVERLAPCAT). - jc37 20:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge as nom. - jc37 20:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Sports venues in Egypt by populated place
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT User:Namiba 19:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Fictional summoners
[edit]This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_10#Category:Fictional_witches_and_wizards. - jc37 19:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge as nom. - jc37 19:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Question, do the articles really belong in Category:Fictional characters who use magic even while that is the parent category? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. For example, there are magic-using villains, magic-using creatures (like oni), and anime Magical girls. Once merged, they can be diffused to subcats (and subcats of subcats, etc.), if/as appropriate. - jc37 11:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Hemiprocnidae
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Hemiprocnidae to Category:Apodiformes
- Nominator's rationale: Hemiprocnidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Albums arranged by Spencer Dryden
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: It's usually jazz or orchestral albums that are heavily reliant on arrangements, and the one article in this category only mentions Dryden as responsible for horn arrangements in the credits section. It seems that that wouldn't be any more defining to the album than Dryden being the drummer on the album. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Palaeospheniscinae
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Palaeospheniscinae to Category:Spheniscidae
- Nominator's rationale: Palaeospheniscinae is a monogeneric subfamily. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Tolkien book characters
[edit]Per other cats in Category:Characters in fantasy novel series of the 20th century and Category:Characters in British novels of the 20th century, etc.
And to match Category:The Lord of the Rings characters.
This could probably have been a speedy rename, but I thought I'd add them here, in case there were any concerns. - jc37 17:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Rename all - as nom. - jc37 17:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Willy Wonka
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Willy Wonka to Category:Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
- Nominator's rationale: Seemingly a case of WP:OVERLAPCAT. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - Category:Willy Wonka characters should be renamed as well. - jc37 20:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in popular culture. I think there's still a category left, even when removing members of Category:Works based on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. - jc37 20:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Charmed (TV series) witches
[edit]Per WP:OVERLAPCAT - Most of the category members are already members of the parent. - jc37 17:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge/Delete - as nominator. - jc37 17:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Fictional magic characters in comics
[edit]- Merge Category:DC Comics witches to Category:DC Comics characters who use magic
- Merge Category:Marvel Comics witches to Category:Marvel Comics characters who use magic
- Delete Category:Fictional witches by franchise
- Merge Category:DC Comics wizards to Category:DC Comics characters who use magic
- Merge Category:Marvel Comics wizards to Category:Marvel Comics characters who use magic
- Delete Category:Fictional wizards by franchise
This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_10#Category:Fictional_witches_and_wizards. And as per Magician (fantasy), these terms are used disparately and subjectively by authors - in some cases the only similarity between the characters is the name.
Many of the first 2 categories' entries are merely female characters who use magic, that editors then decide to categorise as "witches". Similar thing with the wizard cats and male magic-users. It's WP:OR.
And it's also WP:OVERLAPCAT, as many are also in the targets. - jc37 17:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge/Delete - as nominator. - jc37 17:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge/delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not Category:Oz (franchise) witches too? Mike Selinker (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- In that specific case, I think they actually are all called "witches" by the author, and that cat can act as a diffusement for Category:Oz (franchise) characters who use magic. I was keeping this nom focused on the comics characters. But if you think that cat should get a nom too... - jc37 00:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Michael Stipe
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON, this can be handled by the "Works by" tree as only one other article to consider. --woodensuperman 15:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Peter Buck
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON, this can be handled by the "Works by" tree as only one other article to consider. --woodensuperman 15:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:CKY
[edit]- Propose splitting Category:CKY to Category:CKY and Category:CKY crew
- Nominator's rationale: Individuals should be in a separate category per WP:COPSEP, would suggest it should match the article CKY crew. Alternatively, they could be purged, as this could be a WP:PERFCAT issue. --woodensuperman 14:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
22nd-century decades
[edit]- Propose deleting Category:2100s (1 C)
- Propose deleting Category:Fiction set in the 2100s (1 C)
- Propose deleting Category:2110s (1 C, 2 P)
- Propose deleting Category:Fiction set in the 2110s (1 C)
- Propose deleting Category:2120s (1 C)
- Propose deleting Category:Fiction set in the 2120s (1 C)
- Propose deleting Category:2130s (1 C, 1 P); add the article to Category:22nd century
- Propose deleting Category:Fiction set in the 2130s (1 C)
- Propose deleting Category:2140s (1 C)
- Propose deleting Category:Fiction set in the 2140s (1 C)
- Propose deleting Category:2150s (1 C)
- Propose deleting Category:Fiction set in the 2150s (1 C)
- Propose deleting Category:2160s (1 C)
- Propose deleting Category:Fiction set in the 2160s (1 C)
- Propose deleting Category:2170s (1 C)
- Propose deleting Category:Fiction set in the 2170s (1 C)
- Propose deleting Category:2180s (1 C, 1 P)
- Propose deleting Category:Fiction set in the 2180s (1 C)
- Propose deleting Category:2190s (1 C)
- Propose deleting Category:Fiction set in the 2190s (1 C)
- Nominator's rationale: delete, two redundant category layers, diffusion by decade is only useful for the lower "works set in decade" level. Apart from one article (in the 2130s) there is no need to merge, the content is already in other 22nd-century subcats. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This is too far in the future to gather enough articles — I checked the eclipses as well, and the four articles are all from different decades. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Not needed now. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
International families needing locational disambiguation
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Barhath family of Shahpura to Category:Barhath family (Shahpura)
- Category:Oppenheim family of Cologne to Category:Oppenheim family (Cologne)
- Category:Denison family of Toronto to Category:Denison family (Toronto)
- Category:Yadav family of Uttar Pradesh to Category:Yadav family (Uttar Pradesh)
- Category:Yadav family of Bihar to Category:Yadav family (Bihar)
- Category:Das family of Telirbagh to Category:Das family (Telirbagh)
- Propose renaming Category:Barhath family of Shahpura to Category:Barhath family (Shahpura)
- Nominator's rationale: We've renamed all US family categories which need locational disambiguation to put the location in parentheses. These international categories should match. Mike Selinker (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Rename per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Odontobatrachidae
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Odontobatrachidae to Category:Ranoidea
- Nominator's rationale: Odontobatrachidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:July 2026 sports events in the United Kingdom
[edit]- Propose merging Category:January 2026 sports events in Africa (1) to Category:January 2026 sports events
- Propose merging Category:January 2026 sports events in the United States (1) to Category:January 2026 sports events
- Propose merging Category:June 2026 sports events in the United States (1) to Category:June 2026 sports events, Category:June 2026 events in the United States, and Category:2026 in American sports
- Propose merging Category:July 2026 sports events in the United Kingdom (1) to Category:July 2026 sports events in Europe
- Propose merging Category:July 2026 sports events in the United States (1) to Category:July 2026 sports events and Category:July 2026 events in the United States
- Propose merging Category:August 2026 sports events in the United Kingdom (1) to Category:August 2026 sports events in Europe
- Propose merging Category:August 2026 sports events in Germany (1) to Category:August 2026 sports events in Europe and Category:2026 in German sport
- Propose merging Category:November 2026 sports events in Canada (2) to Category:November 2026 sports events in North America
- Propose deleting Category:January 2026 events in Africa (1)
- Propose deleting
Category:2026 events in Africa by month (0)Category:2026 in Africa by month (2) (page was speedy moved during this discussion) - Propose deleting Category:July 2026 events in the United Kingdom (1)
- Propose deleting Category:August 2026 events in the United Kingdom (1)
- Propose deleting Category:2026 in the United Kingdom by month (2)
- Propose deleting Category:August 2026 events in Germany (1)
- Propose deleting Category:2026 events in Germany by month (1)
- Propose deleting Category:January 2026 events in the United States (1)
- Propose deleting Category:January 2026 sports events in North America (1)
- Propose deleting Category:January 2026 events in North America (2)
- Propose deleting Category:June 2026 sports events in North America (2)
- Nominator's rationale: Too soon to diffuse by country & month. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge/delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Surnames from ornamental names
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Surnames from ornamental names to Category:Ornamental surnames
- Nominator's rationale: These surnames, i.e., such as Rosenkrantz or Goldfarb are ornamental surnames themselves, not "derived" from anything but their fancy meaning. --Altenmann >talk 01:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete in the spirit of WP:SHAREDNAME. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per nom. (SHAREDNAME is obviously about items, not the categories themselves? We can obviously categorize surnames) PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed we can categorize surnames, e.g. by language, and we already do that. But this category is what the surnames are named after. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but that is encyclopedic when it comes to surnames themselves because they're discussed in categories that way in the literature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed we can categorize surnames, e.g. by language, and we already do that. But this category is what the surnames are named after. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - This is another "things named after other things". We can't do 1:1 relationships in categories (unless we start doing a myriad of 2-member cats - which would presumably be overcat). - jc37 21:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Sanskrit Aesthetics
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Sanskrit Aesthetics to Category:Sanskrit aesthetics
- Nominator's rationale: So that the capitalization can comply with Wikipedia capitalization conventions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oraclesto (talk • contribs) 00:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Rename per WP:C2A but purge the biographies which mostly belong in the tree of Category:Linguists of Sanskrit. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Nomination was malformed and has been standardized. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Speedy rename per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
January 27
[edit]Category:Africa Cup of Nations balls
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Africa Cup of Nations balls to Category:Africa Cup of Nations
- Nominator's rationale: Just one list article. Merge in spirit of WP:C2F. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge per nom, but shouldn't it also be merged to the other parent category? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Dual merge per Marcocapelle. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete pointless. GiantSnowman 18:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Lists of beaches in Puerto Rico
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Lists of beaches in Puerto Rico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Beaches of Puerto Rico, Category:Lists of landforms of Puerto Rico, Category:Lists of tourist attractions in Puerto Rico, and Category:Lists of beaches of insular areas of the United States
- Nominator's rationale: Just 2 list articles in this category. Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:National highways
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Categorisation by WP:SHAREDNAME that means different things in each of the different countries with member subcategories. I added Category:Highways by country to those that weren't already included via a parent, so it's now redundant. Paul_012 (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Does it really mean different things? I would expect it means (everywhere) that they are owned by the national government rather than by states or provinces. Maybe still delete as a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- In Thailand at least, "national highway" is just one class out of several that are owned by the national government. The other classes are included under Category:Highways in Thailand. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- So it still means they are owned by national government, just like in other countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- In Thailand at least, "national highway" is just one class out of several that are owned by the national government. The other classes are included under Category:Highways in Thailand. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Music generated games
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Music generated games to Category:?
- Nominator's rationale: Raised by Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_10#Category:Video_games_with_custom_soundtrack_support due to its unclear title. The long description is mostly WP:OR, and defines the topic as video games that can read CD inputs. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Music-generated games are games in which the gameplay is generatively determined in a meaningful way by musical input. This is accomplished, in music-generated video games, by associating in-game elements such as landscape or enemy attack formations with elements from the musical input via waveform analysis algorithms. Musical input typically consists of a standard CD in Red Book audio format. With musical input in this format, the game software will load into the console's RAM and allow the removal of the game disc such that any musical CD of the player's choosing may be inserted and accessed during the game. This allows for essentially limitless gameplay variability and is intended to enhance replay value. Other music-generated video games do not allow the player to select his own input, but instead use pre-determined musical input generatively. Such games allow the designers to employ any musical format of their choosing thereby enabling maximal compression and thus maximal pre-determined song library. Generative portions of such games typically derive from music visualization algorithms. Although music-generated games are typically classified as music games, there is no requirement that a music-generated game must fall under this genre or even that the player must hear the music serving to determine gameplay. Furthermore, since gameplay determination is required, games which allow nothing more than a custom soundtrack do not fit the definition of a music-generated game. |
- Comment, some articles mention that they are about a rhythm game, is this possibly a better scope of a category? Marcocapelle (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Some of the members should be or already are included under Category:Rhythm games, but not all of them fall under the category. Generating gameplay content based on music input should probably be a defining aspect of these games, but other than a Steam Curator list[1] I'm only seeing Reddit and other forum posts that discuss them as a grouping. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:BBC Television shows
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:BBC Television shows to Category:BBC television shows
- Nominator's rationale: While the service is called "BBC Television", this naming convention is contra much of the other subcats, including things like Category:BBC television specials and Category:BBC television talk shows. Imo it makes sense to have this version be lowercase as well, as the container category contains television shows as the most-specific description over "shows", which happens to be under BBC Television. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Resolved missing person cases in Utah
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: this just isolates cases, making it harder to navigate SMasonGarrison 13:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe just delete? They are no longer missing person cases. Else merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Manually multi-merge between Category:Missing person cases in Utah, Category:Formerly missing people, Category:Formerly missing people found dead, and/or Category:Formerly missing people found alive wherever individually appropriate. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on AHI-3000's suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- All six articles are already in Category:Formerly missing people, so this is a redundant merge target. Splitting that category is beyond the scope of this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Africa Cup of Nations stadiums
[edit]- Propose deleting Category:Africa Cup of Nations stadiums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:2017 Africa Cup of Nations stadiums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:2019 Africa Cup of Nations stadiums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:2023 Africa Cup of Nations stadiums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Asian Games football venues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Copa América stadiums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:CONIFA World Football Cup stadiums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE and recent precedents. User:Namiba 21:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete, textbook WP:OCVENUE. --woodensuperman 13:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete as above. GiantSnowman 18:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Crones
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Crones to Category:Crones and hags
- Nominator's rationale: It is quite often impossible to split the hair, even the category statute admits this.
- After that, merge Category:Hags into it. --Altenmann >talk 21:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment, Category:Hags has not been tagged yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Pedostibes
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Pedostibes to Category:Bufonidae
- Nominator's rationale: Pedostibes is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants
[edit]- Propose merging Category:RuPaul's Drag Race season 1 contestants to Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants
- Propose merging Category:RuPaul's Drag Race season 2 contestants to Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants
- Propose merging Category:RuPaul's Drag Race season 3 contestants to Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants
- Propose merging Category:RuPaul's Drag Race season 4 contestants to Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants
- Propose merging Category:RuPaul's Drag Race season 5 contestants to Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants
- Propose merging Category:RuPaul's Drag Race season 6 contestants to Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants
- Propose merging Category:RuPaul's Drag Race season 7 contestants to Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants
- Propose merging Category:RuPaul's Drag Race season 8 contestants to Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants
- Propose merging Category:RuPaul's Drag Race season 9 contestants to Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants
- Propose merging Category:RuPaul's Drag Race season 10 contestants to Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants
- Propose merging Category:RuPaul's Drag Race season 11 contestants to Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants
- Propose merging Category:RuPaul's Drag Race season 12 contestants to Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants
- Propose merging Category:RuPaul's Drag Race season 13 contestants to Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants
- Propose merging Category:RuPaul's Drag Race season 14 contestants to Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants
- Propose merging Category:RuPaul's Drag Race season 15 contestants to Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants
- Propose merging Category:RuPaul's Drag Race season 16 contestants to Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants
- Propose merging Category:RuPaul's Drag Race season 17 contestants to Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants
- Nominator's rationale: This is borderline WP:PERFCAT as it is, splitting by season definitely makes this more of a WP:PERFCAT issue. If we have to break this down by show, we should not be splitting by season also, whichever specific season they may or may not have appeared in is not WP:DEFINING. --woodensuperman 09:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. I notice that a lot of other drag TV shows have been subjected to the same inappropriate split just a couple of weeks ago, we do not do this for other reality TV shows, no need to do this here. Once this is resolved, we need to apply the same logic to other shows in the Category:Reality drag competition contestants tree. --woodensuperman 09:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose as creator. A few points. It is quite common for references about the queens to not just refer to them as "RuPauls's Drag Race contestant Silky Nutmeg Ganache", but rather "RuPauls's Drag Race Season 11 contestant Silky Nutmeg Ganache". They represent diffusing* categories to a category with over 200 Queens in it and which allows for these subcats to become part of the cat for each season. The situation with RPDR is that unlike (say) "Who wants to be a millionaire?" or Survivor is that almost all queens in the shows, *as a result of the show* now meet notability criteria. (I honestly don't think we have any other tv show with that number of people who become notable *due* to the show.)Silky Nutmeg Ganache the remainder of her career is specifically identified by the characteristic of her category, as opposed to say the contestants on Celebrity Apprentice.*A few queens due to having to exit early were invited back for the next season.Naraht (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is still no justification to split by season. We already sometimes make an exception to WP:PERFCAT for reality TV series contestants, as we are doing here (although, personally I don't see why, when a lot of these people are famous for more than the one TV series these days, and I'd ideally like to upmerge all of these to Category:Reality drag competition contestants), but splitting by season is a step too far as per WP:COPDEF, the specific season is not the WP:DEFINING characteristic. Splitting this further actually hinders navigation, as you would need to know which season someone was a contestant in order to navigate between the queens. Peversely, it would actually make more sense to break down the navbox {{RuPaul's Drag Race}} by season, rather than the categories, as you would be able to view all the contestants at once. Also, 200 entries in a category isn't catastrophic, when you consider Category:21st-century American male actors has over 6,000 entries. --woodensuperman 14:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- While a few are now famous for one or more additional shows, as far as I can tell more than 80% went from not being notable on the day they were cast to being notable after the show was broadcast. And, as I said, since the references refer to them specifically by season, that fulfills " A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic". If you would like to suggest that the template be redone, I'd suggest *either* the Wikiproject or the template talk page, the Wikiproject is a bit more active. And I think the reason that it hasn't been done is the small season/season overlap mentioned above.Naraht (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is still no justification to split by season. We already sometimes make an exception to WP:PERFCAT for reality TV series contestants, as we are doing here (although, personally I don't see why, when a lot of these people are famous for more than the one TV series these days, and I'd ideally like to upmerge all of these to Category:Reality drag competition contestants), but splitting by season is a step too far as per WP:COPDEF, the specific season is not the WP:DEFINING characteristic. Splitting this further actually hinders navigation, as you would need to know which season someone was a contestant in order to navigate between the queens. Peversely, it would actually make more sense to break down the navbox {{RuPaul's Drag Race}} by season, rather than the categories, as you would be able to view all the contestants at once. Also, 200 entries in a category isn't catastrophic, when you consider Category:21st-century American male actors has over 6,000 entries. --woodensuperman 14:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. The season is not a defining characteristic. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think these categories are helpful and reasonable given the number of entries in Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants and the presence of categories for individual seasons (Category:RuPaul's Drag Race season 7, for example). Most contestants and episodes of the series are notable so some organization helps here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per request on my talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. This is also how contestants on similar reality shows are categorized and I do not see a reason to differentiate here.--User:Namiba 20:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Canadian Dames Commander of the Order of the British Empire
[edit]Speedy Cfd discussion
|
---|
|
- Nominator's rationale: There are, as far as I can see, only two dames due to Canada renouncing titles long ago. So no need to do so by order. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle from speedy Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Serving Brothers of the Order of St John
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: The current title only covers males and not females. In addition, this rank has relatively recently (about 2017, it would appear) been renamed from Serving Brother/Sister to Member. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe just Category:Members of the Order of St John to keep it simple? Marcocapelle (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support as per above comment from @Marcocapelle. It's a simpler title that fits better with the currently used terminology. XFalcon2004x (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Rangpur
[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 G5 SilverLocust 💬 05:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Rangpur to Category:Rangpur, Bangladesh
- Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category created today in good faith by new editor. The name Rangpur is ambiguous, so the existing category's title is correct, since all articles currently in the new category appear to be for the city in Bangladesh. The redirected category may need to be disambiguated for Category:Rangpur District and Category:Rangpur Division. Wikishovel (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge and disambiguate per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge and disambiguate per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Speedy delete The category creation may have appeared initially to be in good faith, but the creator has since been indefed as a block evading sock puppet (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rishad Talukdar). --Worldbruce (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Temples (LDS Church) by location
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Temples (LDS Church) by location to Category:Temples (LDS Church)
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary sub-level containing only two container subcategories and a list. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. XFalcon2004x (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Ballot measures
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Ballot measures to Category:Referendums
- Nominator's rationale: Ballot measure has been a redirect to referendum since 2021. Merge and keep as a redirect per WP:OVERLAPCAT. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do not merge, and please consult prior discussions, such as: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_5#Category:Referendums, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_30#Category:Referenda_in_the_United_States. Short version is: At least in some U.S. states, a referendum is only one of three types of ballot measure. Not every ballot measure can be properly described as a referendum. It's possible there is a way to improve the structure, but the reason this change (or something similar) has not been made in the past is that the issue is more complex than it appears on the surface. I believe that the terms are used in significantly different ways in the U.S. and the U.K., and perhaps differently elsewhere in the world as well. Any change should be informed by a holistic understanding of these differences, or we'll just keep going round and round on it, and confuse our readers in the process. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is perfectly fine that the US category is called "ballot measures", per WP:ENGVAR. But the nominated category is not a US category, it is a global category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- This decision would impact a large number of articles that pertain to many legal systems around the world. I would suggest an approach more like (1) doing some research on the use of the terms in different places, (2) consider several naming schemes and list the pros and cons, (3) put together a proposal, and (4) post to a more widely trafficked venue like Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). If you're open to such an approach, I am willing to help out, and we could do some preliminary work in user: or wikiproject: space. I think it would be valuable to come up with a solution that is compatible with the language used in various jurisdictions. But if not, I'm going to oppose any simple change that puts hundreds or thousands of articles into categories that are in direct contradiction to the formal status of the propositions they concern. - Pete Forsyth (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you misread my reply. I am totally fine to change the name of any countries' category from referendum to ballot measure if that is the term they use in that country. But this category is not for individual countries, it is a global category. And we shouldn't have a fork at global level because of WP:ENGVAR. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Of course a fork at the global level is a problem. As I said, I agree that this is an issue worth resolving; but it needs to be done with a more holistic view. My disagreement is with the present proposal, not with the notion that there's a problem in need of a solution, and not merely with the US-specific category tree. So I don't think there is any misunderstanding. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you misread my reply. I am totally fine to change the name of any countries' category from referendum to ballot measure if that is the term they use in that country. But this category is not for individual countries, it is a global category. And we shouldn't have a fork at global level because of WP:ENGVAR. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- This decision would impact a large number of articles that pertain to many legal systems around the world. I would suggest an approach more like (1) doing some research on the use of the terms in different places, (2) consider several naming schemes and list the pros and cons, (3) put together a proposal, and (4) post to a more widely trafficked venue like Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). If you're open to such an approach, I am willing to help out, and we could do some preliminary work in user: or wikiproject: space. I think it would be valuable to come up with a solution that is compatible with the language used in various jurisdictions. But if not, I'm going to oppose any simple change that puts hundreds or thousands of articles into categories that are in direct contradiction to the formal status of the propositions they concern. - Pete Forsyth (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is perfectly fine that the US category is called "ballot measures", per WP:ENGVAR. But the nominated category is not a US category, it is a global category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Peteforsyth: if you agree with the fact that there is a problem but you keep keep opposing the proposal then please come up with an alternative proposal. Personally I don't see any alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- My proposal is above, I'm surprised you don't acknowledge it. I am not confident I have a broad enough command of the various issues to come up with a comprehensive solution myself, nor do I think you do. The path I suggest is the one I've seen work time and again to move past thorny issues on the wiki. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- That is not a proposal, it is just delaying the only possible solution for unclear reasons. You do not provide any argument why this category should not be merged, the only thing you say is that your knowledge about the topic falls short. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- My proposal is above, I'm surprised you don't acknowledge it. I am not confident I have a broad enough command of the various issues to come up with a comprehensive solution myself, nor do I think you do. The path I suggest is the one I've seen work time and again to move past thorny issues on the wiki. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Virtual reality pioneers
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: From Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_19#Virtual_reality_->_Extended_reality:
–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Please renominate "Virtual reality pioneers" separately. The term is generally only used in retrospect and I don't think it's controversial to say VR is still developing in a way that it's hard for us to say who is and isn't a pioneer from the present vantage point.
— User:Axem Titanium 23:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)- Oppose (keep). All the nominated categories can be kept without any deletions or renamings instead. 67.209.130.111 (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am not for or against the proposal, just noting that this last oppose vote should be discounted, as it does not provide any rationale for opposing. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose (keep). All the nominated categories can be kept without any deletions or renamings instead. 67.209.130.111 (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Experts on North Korea
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Experts on North Korea to Category:Scholars of North Korea
- Nominator's rationale: Most of the people in this category aren't described as experts. How are we defining who is an expert? There are a few politicians who I would not describe as experts in here (and neither does their article), but the only defining categorization here is those who study it as their discipline. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support as per nom. XFalcon2004x (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Experts on terrorism
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Experts on terrorism to Category:Scholars of terrorism
- Nominator's rationale: Experts is a weird thing to categorize by as well as a POV judgement. Who are we defining as an expert? Does Osama Bin Laden count as an "expert on terrorism"? There are a few politicians in here who made some legislation on terrorism, but I dispute that this makes them experts, and they are not described as such. The subcat of "terrorism theorists" should be merged into this, as it is basically doing the same thing. No, what these people are actually notable for is being scholars of the topic. All other categories like this (except two, which should also be changed) either use academics or scholars. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Scholars is the best option. --Fadesga (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
January 26
[edit]Category:Oxynotidae
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Oxynotidae to Category:Squaliformes
- Nominator's rationale: Oxynotidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Pristiophoridae
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Pristiophoridae to Category:Pristiophoriformes
- Nominator's rationale: Pristiophoridae is the only family in the monotypic order Pristiophoriformes. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Anacanthobatis
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Anacanthobatis to Category:Rajidae
- Nominator's rationale: Anacanthobatis is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Heteropneustidae
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Heteropneustidae to Category:Siluriformes
- Nominator's rationale: Heteropneustidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Austroglanididae
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Austroglanididae to Category:Siluriformes
- Nominator's rationale: Austroglanididae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Astroblepidae
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Astroblepidae to Category:Siluriformes
- Nominator's rationale: Astroblepidae is a monogeneric family. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Years of the 19th century in the Kingdom of Hanover
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Rename and redirect. Kingdom of Hanover only existed 1814–1866. Redirect as {{R from template-generated category}}. – Fayenatic London 14:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Rename and redirect per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Rename and redirect per nom. Alternatively include the centuries of the Electorate of Hanover in the tree, i.e. rename to Category:Years of the 19th century in Hanover, which is also done with Category:Battles involving Hanover. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Parazacco
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Parazacco to Category:Xenocyprididae
- Nominator's rationale: Parazacco is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:2030s in Africa
[edit]- Propose merging Category:2030 in Egypt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:21st century in Egypt and Category:2030
- Propose merging Category:2030 in Moroccan sport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:21st century in Morocco
- Propose deleting Category:2030s in Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:2030s in Egypt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:2030s in Morocco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:2030 in Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:2030 in Morocco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:2030 in African sport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Yet another underpopulated category for the future. The two articles contained within Category:2030 in Moroccan sport are already in the subcategory. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge/delete per nom. These categories were created too soon. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge/delete per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Double merge for the first one, also to Category:2030. – Fayenatic London 22:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:2027 in Africa
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:2027 in African football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:2027 in association football
- Propose renaming Category:2027 in Kenyan sport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:2020s in Kenyan sport
- Propose renaming Category:2027 in Tanzanian sport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:2020s in Tanzanian sport
- Propose renaming Category:2027 in Ugandan sport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:2020s in Ugandan sport
- Propose deleting Category:2027 in African sport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:2027 in Kenya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:2027 in Tanzania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:2027 in Uganda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:2027 in Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Only contents are those in Category:2027 Africa Cup of Nations. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge/delete per nom. These categories were created too soon. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge/delete per nom. Also fixed the 3rd/4th listed nominated categories to be the correct ones and tagged them. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Double merge the first one also to Category:2020s in African sport. – Fayenatic London 22:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Acanthorhodeus
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Acanthorhodeus to Category:Acheilognathinae
- Nominator's rationale: Acanthorhodeus is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge All of these monotypic taxa CfD's should be bundled. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Chromobotia
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Chromobotia to Category:Botiidae
- Nominator's rationale: Chromobotia is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Gymnocharacinus
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Gymnocharacinus to Category:Gymnocharacini
- Nominator's rationale: Gymnocharacinus is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Spratellomorpha
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Spratellomorpha to Category:Ehiravidae
- Nominator's rationale: Spratellomorpha is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Stolothrissa
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Stolothrissa to Category:Dorosomatidae
- Nominator's rationale: Stolothrissa is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Omosudidae
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Omosudidae to Category:Aulopiformes
- Nominator's rationale: Omosudidae is a monogeneric family, and its genus Omosudis is also monotypic. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Typhlichthys
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Typhlichthys to Category:Amblyopsidae
- Nominator's rationale: Typhlichthys is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Balistapus
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Balistapus to Category:Balistidae
- Nominator's rationale: Balistapus is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Syngnathoides
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Syngnathoides to Category:Syngnathidae
- Nominator's rationale: Syngnathoides is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Lamprichthys
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Lamprichthys to Category:Poeciliidae
- Nominator's rationale: Lamprichthys is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:American Masters Athlete that competed in Olympics
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection. Only 3 articles were not in the Category:Olympic track and field athletes for the United States tree and I verified via PetScan that they either a) never competed in the Olympics (due to 1980 boycott or WWII) or b) competed under another nationality (dual nationality). Opposed rename at speedy. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Copy of speedy discussion
|
---|
|
- @Habst, Kaffet i halsen, and Marcocapelle: pinging participants of speedy discussion. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per nominator and previous speedy discission. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm glad the poor rename has been rescinded. I also oppose the merge. While necessarily all members of this category are necessarily also members of Category:American masters athletes, these have the unique feature of having competed in the Olympics. And most will also have Category:Olympic track and field athletes for the United States though there are some who competed for other countries. This category served the meeting of the Venn diagram between those two categories, plus the ones who competed for other countries. By merging categories, you then will get people moving and removing one or the other. You can't prevent it, there are overzealous editors who remove appropriate content every day. Some people are just plain stupid. Categories are meant to help guide users to information. By encouraging this movement of categories, a merger will damage user's ability to find information. And isn't that why we are here? Editors, I think there are a small group of them, have done an excellent job of populating both categories. Don't start a cycle to mess that up. Trackinfo (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
American masters athletes that competed in the Summer Olympics
|
- @Trackinfo, what do you think about including a link in the sidebar of Category:American masters athletes using the {{PetScan}} template like this (see right)? The issue with the current title is that the 'M' in Masters and the 'A' in Athletes shouldn't be capitalized because we use sentence case for category titles, see WP:NCCPT. Also, a definite article "the" is missing after the word "in".
- The benefit of just including a link to the PetScan is that it will be automatically populated, and it still serves the navigation aid purpose so it will be easier to maintain. Greatly appreciate your work here. --Habst (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- These are very special / unique individuals that competed as an Olympian, and were capable of continuing to compete later as a Masters athlete. Many Olympians have attempted to continue as a Masters but were unable (due to past injuries or other reasons). Recommend: to not change.[Side note: Not part of this conversation: Occasionally the individual has been a both at the same time.] PlainDonut (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @PlainDonut, what do you think about putting this category intersection link at the category page, so that the list of U.S. masters Olympians is still there and will be automatically updated in the future by a computer, instead of having to manually maintain it at this category? --Habst (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: Some of the USA Masters Athletes (Track and Field) competed at the Winter Olympics, hence the term
- "Olympics."
- Side Note: Some Masters Athletes (Track and Field) were USA Olympic Coaches. PlainDonut (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- @PlainDonut, I updated the PetScan link to include everyone from Category:Olympic competitors, i.e. both the Summer and Winter Olympics. If they were Olympic coaches only and not competitors, they don't belong in this category because it says, "competed" in the Olympics.
- Now that the PetScan link includes all Summer and Winter competitors who are U.S. masters athletes, what do you think? --Habst (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- As long as we keep category or sub-category: "American Masters Athlete that competed in Olympics"
- Side note: Willie Gault is one example that competed in Masters, Summer Olys, and was an alternate for the Winter Olys. Lolo Jones and Lauryn Williams competed in Summer and Winter Olys. Willie Davenport competed in Masters, Summer and Winter Olys. There might be more. PlainDonut (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- @PlainDonut, if we have a PetScan link which is the exact same as the category, then why should we keep the category? The PetScan link should include Jones, Williams, and Davenport already. The problem is that if we have this category for one nationality, we would also need to make it for every other nationality and nobody has done that yet (and we would have to rename it because "Athlete" shouldn't be capitalized). I greatly appreciate your work compiling this, but now PetScan can make the same list so I think it's not needed any more. What do you think? --Habst (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- @PlainDonut, what do you think about putting this category intersection link at the category page, so that the list of U.S. masters Olympians is still there and will be automatically updated in the future by a computer, instead of having to manually maintain it at this category? --Habst (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- My concern is not so much to gloss up the appearance within the category, which would be a single edit kind of move. It would be across all current 130 and growing members of this list, which would necessarily also contain Category:Olympic track and field athletes for the United States and Category:American masters athletes. If one were a sub-category of another in either direction, editors are encouraged to remove the duplicate category. But the double duplication is what makes this category unique. We could end up with 130 articles chaotically changing categories which would be difficult to track and effectively make this and possibly other categories incomplete. This does not serve the purpose of categories in helping users locate similar content. As @Plain Donut commented elsewhere, each is a special accomplishment, not easily achieved in either direction.
- Sub comment: It is difficult to participate in discussions like this when every capital letter causes the cursor to jump back to the beginning of the comment box. Every sentence needs to be re-constructed with multiple copy/paste edits. On my multiple computers using Safari, this has been an ongoing problem I have remarked about for years.Trackinfo (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Trackinfo, re: your computer issue, can you try using another browser like Firefox? Or if not, try using the mobile version of Wikipedia here to reply instead?
- I don't understand how merging would make those 130 articles incomplete. It would be a straightforward change, and we could verify that all 130 are in Category:American masters athletes and you could add that category to your watchlist to see if any are added or removed. We are not losing any data either, because the full list of U.S. masters Olympians will always be available at this category intersection no matter what.
- In general, I don't see the reason to separately manually maintain something that is both an outlier (there is no equivalent Category:Candadian Masters Athlete that competed in Olympics or for any other country) and can already be maintained with 100% accuracy by a computer program (PetScan) above.
- Also, what do you think about the casing and grammar issues with the category name? Again, I greatly respect your work here so hoping we can come to a consensus. --Habst (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Trackinfo: The intersection between Olympian and Masters athlete is non-defining. They are two separate unrelated traits. Being a track and field athlete at the Olympics is defining and being a masters athlete is defining, but the intersection of those two is not defining. The content could be converted to a list either by expanding List of masters athletes or on a new page where more context can be given. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Cautiously relisting. If the category is not merged/deleted, should it be renamed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge, trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Scaturiginichthys
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Scaturiginichthys to Category:Pseudomugilinae
- Nominator's rationale: Scaturiginichthys is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Oxudercinae
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Oxudercinae to Category:Mudskippers
- Nominator's rationale: These categories are overlapping – mudskipper is the common name for members of the subfamily Oxudercinae. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Ratsirakia
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Ratsirakia to Category:Eleotridae
- Nominator's rationale: Ratsirakia is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Coryphaena
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Coryphaena to Category:Coryphaenidae
- Nominator's rationale: Coryphaena is the sole member of the monogeneric family Coryphaenidae. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Batrachoidiformes
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Batrachoidiformes to Category:Percomorpha
- Nominator's rationale: Batrachoidiformes is a monotypic order. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- But it's not monotypic to Percomorpha. I suggest Category:Batrachoididae is a better merge. ? UtherSRG (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Hebei Tiangong F.C. players
[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 rename.. – Fayenatic London 14:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Hebei Tiangong F.C. players to Category:Shijiazhuang Tiangong F.C. players
- Nominator's rationale: I mistakenly created the category on its current name. IDontHaveSkype (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Speedy rename as WP:C2E. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Colluricinclidae
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Colluricinclidae to Category:Pachycephalidae
- Nominator's rationale: Colluricinclidae is a monogeneric family containing only Colluricincla, so normally I'd propose merging it into its parent Category:Passeriformes. However, according to A multi-gene phylogeny reveals novel relationships for aberrant genera of Australo-Papuan core Corvoidea and polyphyly of the Pachycephalidae and Psophodidae (Aves: Passeriformes) and Historical biogeography of an Indo-Pacific passerine bird family (Pachycephalidae): different colonization patterns in the Indonesian and Melanesian archipelagos (and as described in our article on shrikethrushes), Colluricincla has been moved into the family Pachycephalidae, making Colluricinclidae a junior subjective synonym of Pachycephalidae. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
January 25
[edit]Category:Integral thought
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Integral thought to Category:Integral theory
- Nominator's rationale: To my (admittedly bare) understanding of this remnant of this extremely confusing walled garden (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of integral thinkers and supporters, which is what happened to the Integral thought article after moves) this is the same thing as Integral theory, except has an OR aspect of conflating it with several of its inspirations. The subcategory is fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge Contents that are directly in the nominated category should be checked for accuracy. This is a downmerge, so parents will need to be updated as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete, not a defining characteristic of any of the articles. Some articles are about integral yoga which is unrelated. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Setians
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Setians to Category:Temple of Set
- Nominator's rationale: The title and description is confusing, but every item listed is affiliated with or is the Temple of Set. Non-Temple of Set Set affiliations are not included. Category should thus be renamed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Alternative: Stephen Flowers and Nikolas Schreck aren't clearly affiliated and the others can be put in a Category:High priests of the Temple of Set. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think Schreck is fairly affiliated (flowers probably is but it's not mentioned in the article now, so, fair). It also, IMO, makes little sense to have a category of high priests excluding the actual main Temple of Set article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- The main Temple of Set article can still be mentioned in the category description. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would oppose this for the reason that as this category expands I think most of the topics included would not be high priests. And it makes sense to deal with as an eponymous category. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- At least we need something else in order to keep the category in the tree of Category:Occultists by religion. It is a people category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would oppose this for the reason that as this category expands I think most of the topics included would not be high priests. And it makes sense to deal with as an eponymous category. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- The main Temple of Set article can still be mentioned in the category description. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think Schreck is fairly affiliated (flowers probably is but it's not mentioned in the article now, so, fair). It also, IMO, makes little sense to have a category of high priests excluding the actual main Temple of Set article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Bangladesh protests (2022–2024)
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: The main article has been deleted for reasons that also negate the purpose of this category. Charles Essie (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete As the PROD rationale explains:
–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)claims there was a continuous stream of protests in the region from 2022-2024 which is not supported by any WP:RS. Fails WP:V and is complete WP:OR. 2024 July Revolution (Bangladesh) is unrelated to this. Not a single source says there were any such protests in 2022 and 2023, and in mid 2024 a completely unrepated protest took place that has veen merged here to make an imaginary 2 years long protest!
— User:Dilbaggg 18 January 2025
- Upmerge to Category:2024 protests. – Fayenatic London 09:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- That is a good point. The subcategory should stay in the tree of Category:2024 protests. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Ancient deaths
[edit]- Propose merging Category:1549 BC deaths to Category:1540s BC deaths
- Propose merging Category:1530 BC deaths to Category:1530s BC deaths
- Propose merging Category:1525 BC deaths to Category:1520s BC deaths
- Propose merging Category:1493 BC deaths to Category:1490s BC deaths
- Propose merging Category:1458 BC deaths to Category:1450s BC deaths
- Propose merging Category:1479 BC deaths to Category:1470s BC deaths
- Propose merging Category:1475 BC deaths to Category:1470s BC deaths
- Propose merging Category:1458 BC deaths to Category:1450s BC deaths
- Propose merging Category:1338 BC deaths to Category:1330s BC deaths
- Propose merging Category:1292 BC deaths to Category:1290s BC deaths
- Propose merging Category:1279 BC deaths to Category:1270s BC deaths
- Propose merging Category:1213 BC deaths to Category:1210s BC deaths
- Propose merging Category:1203 BC deaths to Category:1200s BC deaths
- Nominator's rationale: merge, until 700 BC these are mostly single-article categories, this is not helpful for navigation. This is follow-up on this earlier nomination.
- @Aidan721, LaundryPizza03, and XFalcon2004x: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge all per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge all Most dates before the Middle Ages are uncertain at the year level. It is possible that the earlier decades should be upmerged to the century level. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge as per above comment, holding with my rationale from previous discussion. Dates are finnicky until we get to much more recent recorded history, so it may even be logical to merge up to the century, rather than the decade. XFalcon2004x (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Macedonian Senators
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Single-entry category of unclear utility. The Assembly of North Macedonia is a unicameral body, not a house-and-senate body, according to its article, so there is no Senate of North Macedonia for people to be members of -- instead, there's a usage note here which states that the category is for "Macedonian citizens representing Macedonian Diaspora in Official Government bodies in the North Macedonia, such as National Parliament", which isn't what the word "senator" means, and even the one person who has been filed here is described by his article as an ambassador, not as a "senator", and is already appropriately categorized as a Macedonian diplomat.
So if a category were warranted for whatever that usage note is supposed to mean, it would have to be renamed quite differently than this -- but people can't be categorized as "senators" if they aren't members of any "senate". Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do not Delete There is such position, see at Macedonian Wikipedia here Igor R. Janev and here "Title Macedonian Senator" [2].87.116.178.196 (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself, since anybody can introduce any complete bullshit into it at any time — it's third party sourcing that keeps us on the rails, not "other Wikipedia articles". Show a third party media source independently verifying that North Macedonia has a senate, and that Jordan Plevnes is a member of it, or drop the stick. Bearcat (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- See for instance WMC Senator for USA (Arizona) writer Jason Miko [3] (in Macedonian: "СМК го наградува Џејсон Мико со највисокото светско семакедонско признание, почесната титула Македонски Сенатор"). 87.116.178.196 (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself, since anybody can introduce any complete bullshit into it at any time — it's third party sourcing that keeps us on the rails, not "other Wikipedia articles". Show a third party media source independently verifying that North Macedonia has a senate, and that Jordan Plevnes is a member of it, or drop the stick. Bearcat (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- IP changed the description on the category page. If it is just an honorary title then delete per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- This title was given to French Constitutional Justice Robert Badinter, see[4]. 87.116.178.196 (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Disease outbreaks in locations of Overseas France
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Disease outbreaks in the Collectivity of Saint Martin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:History of the Collectivity of Saint Martin
- Propose merging Category:Disease outbreaks in French Guiana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Health in French Guiana and Category:History of French Guiana
- Propose merging Category:Disease outbreaks in French Polynesia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Disasters in French Polynesia and Category:Health in French Polynesia
- Propose merging Category:Disease outbreaks in Guadeloupe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Disasters in Guadeloupe and Category:Health in Guadeloupe
- Propose merging Category:Disease outbreaks in Mayotte (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Health in Mayotte and Category:Disasters in Mayotte
- Propose merging Category:Disease outbreaks in Réunion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Disasters in Réunion
- Propose merging Category:Disease outbreaks in Saint Barthélemy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Disasters in Saint Barthélemy
- Propose merging Category:Disease outbreaks in Saint Pierre and Miquelon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:History of Saint Pierre and Miquelon and Category:Health in Saint Pierre and Miquelon
- Propose merging Category:Disease outbreaks in Wallis and Futuna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Health in Wallis and Futuna and Category:Disasters in Wallis and Futuna
- Propose deleting Category:Health disasters in the Collectivity of Saint Martin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Disasters in the Collectivity of Saint Martin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Health in the Collectivity of Saint Martin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Health disasters in French Guiana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Disasters in French Guiana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Health disasters in French Polynesia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Health disasters in Guadeloupe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Health disasters in Réunion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Health in Réunion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Health in Saint Barthélemy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Health disasters in Saint Pierre and Miquelon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Disasters in Saint Pierre and Miquelon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Health disasters in Wallis and Futuna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: This whole tree contains only "COVID-19 pandemic in Foo" articles, all of which are already in Category:COVID-19 pandemic in Overseas France. If other health disaster / disease outbreak articles get created for these locations, then the deleted categories can be revisisted. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge/delete per nom, these categories have been created too soon. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support, these territories generally do not have any articles on hospitals that could be added, see Lists_of_hospitals_in_North_America#Territories_and_dependencies. – Fayenatic London 16:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:People from Taha'a
[edit]- Propose merging Category:People from Taha'a to Category:People from the Society Islands
- Nominator's rationale: Contains only 1 biography article. Merge per WP:NARROW –Aidan721 (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge, only 1 article, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge as per nom. XFalcon2004x (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Women biomechanists
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Women biomechanists to Category:Biomechanists
- Nominator's rationale: I think we should repurpose this category to include all biomechanists, not, just women. I don't know if the intersection is defining, but I do know taht we should start this tree with the non-intersecting parent SMasonGarrison 16:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. After renaming at least Lawrence Patrick and Yuan-Cheng Fung can be added. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Omiya Ardija players
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Omiya Ardija players to Category:RB Omiya Ardija players
- Nominator's rationale: Mismatch between category name and head article title RB Omiya Ardija, which has caused a big red "Error! Omiya Ardija is a redirect, the category name should match the main article name!!!" message to appear at the top of the category.
Because of a process issue, however, I'm taking this to a full CFR discussion rather than just listing it for speedy: the article was arbitrarily moved to its new title after Christmas by an editor without following the page renaming process, and that editor has since been persistently trying to move articles into the redlinked target category without following the proper renaming process to get the category moved to that name -- the "RB" category has recurred on the redlinked category report at least five or six times in the past month, with two of those times occurring after they were advised to cut it out and follow proper process. (Accordingly, I've temporarily created it as a categoryredirect so that it stops showing up as a redlink, though obviously the redirect and the main category name can just be switched if this goes through.)
So the question is, was the page move warranted and this category should then be moved to match it, or was the page move improper and it should be moved back to its old name instead of moving this category? Either way, the redlinked-category crap needs to stop. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unless this editor responds here with an explanation I suppose it is for the better to revert the article move. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 12:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - the page move appears valid (see e.g. this), so the category should be moved to match the. However, a big trout to the editor who moved the page without discussion! GiantSnowman 12:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Black LGBTQ people
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Black LGBTQ people to Category:LGBTQ people of African descent
- Nominator's rationale: Parent is Category:People of African descent, and the norm from recent cfds is of African descent SMasonGarrison 15:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Rename and purge, after renaming African people no longer belong here. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Rename per precedents for Category:Black people. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Cults
[edit]- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Works about cults to Category:Works about new religious movements
- Propose merging Category:Fiction about cults to Category:Fiction about new religious movements
- Propose merging Category:Films about cults to Category:Films about new religious movements
- Propose merging Category:Books about cults to Category:Books about new religious movements
- Nominator's rationale: merge, follow-up on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_17#Category:Cults, the lack of a clear definition of cults makes it difficult to classify articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would hesitantly oppose. My rationale is most media works can present themself as being “about” something even if we do not define it. This is the case for films and books. If it says it is about cults it is about cults. We are in no business to define one, but they can. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree with you. One example: The Empty Man (film) seems to be clearly and obviously about what is presented as a cult, not a new religious movement (which, for certain works of fiction, would pass for a huge and borderline comedic euphemism/extrapolation if such a merge happened, I suppose).That is the choice of the artists and the sources confirm it. Films about cults include 5 subcats and 223 pages so far and it is a notable subgenre of horror cinema. On a case by case approach some can be moved from one category to the other (and maybe have both categories, if sources/content allow to do so, for example The Wicker Man, maybe), so that I am opposed to merge. I note that the Category:Cults was manually merged as subjective but, precisely, works of art are subjective creations. So MAYBE for documentary films that reasoning applies (and even then, it shouldn't be for us to decide) but not for fiction (and PARAKANYAA had indicated that point in their rationale: "there are some valid subcategories of this (works about cults, anti-cult movement)"). Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 19:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- +1 said it better than I could, thanks PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose as per above comments. Cults do not necessarily equal new religious movements, and new religious movements do not necessarily equal cults. XFalcon2004x (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree with you. One example: The Empty Man (film) seems to be clearly and obviously about what is presented as a cult, not a new religious movement (which, for certain works of fiction, would pass for a huge and borderline comedic euphemism/extrapolation if such a merge happened, I suppose).That is the choice of the artists and the sources confirm it. Films about cults include 5 subcats and 223 pages so far and it is a notable subgenre of horror cinema. On a case by case approach some can be moved from one category to the other (and maybe have both categories, if sources/content allow to do so, for example The Wicker Man, maybe), so that I am opposed to merge. I note that the Category:Cults was manually merged as subjective but, precisely, works of art are subjective creations. So MAYBE for documentary films that reasoning applies (and even then, it shouldn't be for us to decide) but not for fiction (and PARAKANYAA had indicated that point in their rationale: "there are some valid subcategories of this (works about cults, anti-cult movement)"). Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 19:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would hesitantly oppose. My rationale is most media works can present themself as being “about” something even if we do not define it. This is the case for films and books. If it says it is about cults it is about cults. We are in no business to define one, but they can. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- @PARAKANYAA and Jc37: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: This set of categories is not at all similar to the previous two CFDs you are piggybacking on, and nom's rationale is flimsy. Along the lines of what PARAK wrote, works can be about cults in general without such a category being derogatory to the article subject. Whitewashing Wikipedia of the word 'cult' is neither desirable nor appropriate. WP:NOTCENSORED. BTW, I notified each of the Wikiprojects mentioned for these 4 categories. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: If it is a real-world issue about if some organization is a cult or not, why not just rename these categories to say "fictional cults"? I feel like it's weird to project "new religious movement" onto some silly horror movie's cult that threatens the protagonist. Works about real-world cults/new religious movements can have their own category. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: Cults is not a subset of new religious movements. The few who believe this to be the case are a minority of sociologists who define their field as the study of new religions. Scholars in other fields do not regard them as a subset, and have criticised those sociologists, with some justice, for taking significant sums of money from groups (such as Aum Shinrikyo – after they committed murderous atrocities) and then acting as their paid apologist. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are not the minority. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are the minority. Most sociologists have better things to do. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are not the minority. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Withdraw. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:New Acropolis
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: delete, only two articles and they already link to each other directly. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete there are plenty of notable New Acropolis topics. We happen to not have articles on any of them. When we do, recreate. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:2027 in Asia
[edit]- Propose merging Category:2027 elections in Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:2027 elections and Category:2027 in Asia
- Propose merging Category:2027 in South Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:2020s in South Korea and Category:2027 in Asia
- Propose merging Category:2027 in Oman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:2020s in Oman and Category:2027 in Asia
- Propose merging Category:2027 in Saudi Arabian sport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:2020s in Saudi Arabian sport
- Propose merging Category:2027 in Istanbul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:2020s in Istanbul and Category:2027 in Asia
- Propose merging Category:2027 in Turkish sport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:2020s in Turkish sport and Category:2027 in Asian sport
- Propose deleting Category:2027 in Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:2027 in Saudi Arabia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:2027 in Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Only contents are one article each at the lowest level, and some empty categories that will be speedy deleted per C1. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge, this is not helpful for navigation between related articles. It may still take a few years before there is a need for diffusion. The articles are fine in the parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose These categories will obviously grow in size the closer we get to 2027. It seems like pointless bureaucracy to delete them now and recreate them later. Number 57 22:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose as per above comment. This feels like proactive category creation; while it won't be in use for a while, it will undoubtedly come into play and save editors time down the line rather than forcing two batches of effort be made - one to delete now and another to recreate later. XFalcon2004x (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:2027 in China
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Only article is a building that hasn't started construction yet. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Buildings are typically categorized by year completed not year construction began. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Nintendo Switch 2
[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: procedural close, category already deleted (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Previously nominated for deletion here one week ago. Besides that, WP:TOOSOON. GSK (talk • edits) 05:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment This was improperly deleted by JJMC89 bot III (talk · contribs). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per G4 if recreated. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Related to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:George19980825_reported_by_User:GSK_(Result:_). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is not likely that it is going to be recreated considering this edit by category creator. It is a pity they are entirely non-communicative though. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can this then be closed on procedural grounds? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wrestlemania participants
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category per the related discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Category:Royal Rumble participants and Category:Wrestlemania participants Mann Mann (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale On further reflection, this seems to be the best course of action. I still very much do not appreciate this however. Disappointed. Lemonademan22 (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per consensus at the WikiProject talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing productive about this category. Stephen"Zap" (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- delete non-defining Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Royal Rumble participants
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category per the related discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Category:Royal Rumble participants and Category:Wrestlemania participants Mann Mann (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per consensus at the WikiProject talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Again, nothing productive about this category. Stephen"Zap" (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:February 1861 events in the United States
[edit]- Propose merging Category:February 1861 events in the United States to Category:1861 in the United States and Category:February 1861
- Propose deleting Category:February 1861 events by continent
- Propose deleting Category:February 1861 events in North America
- Propose deleting Category:February 1861 events by country
- Nominator's rationale: Category tree for a single country and with 3 articles total. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge/delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge/delete per nom, but manually merge to Category:1861 in the United States. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Months from 2027 onward
[edit]- Propose merging Category:February 2027 events in the United States to Category:2027 in the United States
- Propose merging Category:February 2027 sports events to Category:2027 in sports
- Propose merging Category:March 2027 events in Australia to Category:2027 in Australia
- Propose merging Category:May 2027 events in Spain to Category:2027 in Spain
- Propose merging Category:June 2027 sports events in Europe to Category:2027 in European sport
- Propose merging Category:November 2027 events in the United States to Category:2027 in the United States
- Propose merging Category:February 2028 sports events to Category:2028 in sports
- Propose merging Category:April 2028 events in South Korea to Category:2028 in South Korea
- Propose merging Category:September 2028 sports events to Category:2028 in sports
- Propose merging Category:November 2028 events in the United States to Category:2028 in the United States
- Propose merging Category:January 2029 to Category:2029
- Propose merging Category:February 2030 sports events to Category:2030 in sports
- Propose merging Category:July 2032 sports events in Australia to Category:2032 in Australian sport
- Propose merging Category:August 2032 sports events in Australia to Category:2032 in Australian sport
- Propose merging Category:September 2032 sports events in Australia to Category:2032 in Australian sport
- Propose merging Category:January 2038 to Category:2038
- Propose deleting Category:2027 by month
- Propose deleting Category:2027 events in Europe by month
- Propose deleting Category:2027 events in North America by month
- Propose deleting Category:2027 events in Oceania by month
- Propose deleting Category:2027 events in Australia by month
- Propose deleting Category:2027 events in Spain by month
- Propose deleting Category:2027 events in the United States by month
- Propose deleting Category:2027 sports events by month
- Propose deleting Category:February 2027
- Propose deleting Category:February 2027 events in North America
- Propose deleting Category:February 2027 events by country
- Propose deleting Category:March 2027
- Propose deleting Category:March 2027 events by continent
- Propose deleting Category:March 2027 events in Oceania
- Propose deleting Category:March 2027 events by country
- Propose deleting Category:May 2027
- Propose deleting Category:May 2027 events by continent
- Propose deleting Category:May 2027 events in Europe
- Propose deleting Category:May 2027 events by country
- Propose deleting Category:May 2027 sports events
- Propose deleting Category:June 2027
- Propose deleting Category:June 2027 events by continent
- Propose deleting Category:June 2027 events in Europe
- Propose deleting Category:June 2027 sports events
- Propose deleting Category:November 2027
- Propose deleting Category:November 2027 events by continent
- Propose deleting Category:November 2027 events in North America
- Propose deleting Category:November 2027 events by country
- Propose deleting Category:2028 by month
- Propose deleting Category:2028 events in Asia by month
- Propose deleting Category:2028 events in North America by month
- Propose deleting Category:2028 events in South Korea by month
- Propose deleting Category:2028 events in the United States by month
- Propose deleting Category:2028 sports events by month
- Propose deleting Category:February 2028
- Propose deleting Category:April 2028
- Propose deleting Category:April 2028 events by country
- Propose deleting Category:September 2028
- Propose deleting Category:November 2028
- Propose deleting Category:November 2028 events by continent
- Propose deleting Category:November 2028 events in North America
- Propose deleting Category:November 2028 events by country
- Propose deleting Category:2029 by month
- Propose deleting Category:2030 by month
- Propose deleting Category:2030 sports events by month
- Propose deleting Category:February 2030
- Propose deleting Category:2032 by month
- Propose deleting Category:2032 sports events by month
- Propose deleting Category:July 2032 sports events
- Propose deleting Category:July 2032 sports events in Oceania
- Propose deleting Category:August 2032
- Propose deleting Category:August 2032 sports events
- Propose deleting Category:August 2032 sports events in Oceania
- Propose deleting Category:September 2032
- Propose deleting Category:September 2032 sports events
- Propose deleting Category:September 2032 sports events in Oceania
- Propose deleting Category:2038 by month
- Nominator's rationale: Too soon, nest of categories containing only a handful of articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see any benefit to deletion, given that relevant articles do exist and these will just be recreated in the near future (and obviously will have more than enough members eventually). Taking future events out of the category tree helps people how, exactly? Elli (talk | contribs) 04:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed SecretName101 (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- this does not make sense to do.
- If articles on future events exist, then categories to sort them should also exist SecretName101 (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- The problem is that there are not enough articles to diffuse by month. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge, this is not helpful for navigation between related articles. It may still take a few years before there is a need for diffusion. The articles are fine in the parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge/delete per nom. There is very little content here that does not need to be diffused by month. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Partial deletion/merge. I think we can probably delete the monthly categories, but I'd say to leave the yearly ones alone, as things are already being scheduled/awarded for those years by now. XFalcon2004x (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- I should clarify this: leave the categories that are "year by month", but remove the ones that are specific for months until we have more material to warrant the month having its own category. XFalcon2004x (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- The "year by month" categories are container categories for the nominated categories. They will be empty after the merging. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- I should clarify this: leave the categories that are "year by month", but remove the ones that are specific for months until we have more material to warrant the month having its own category. XFalcon2004x (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
January 24
[edit]Set theorists by nationality
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: The top-level category is not currently too big. If it gets too big, it would be better to divide by field of study. Nationality is not a very relevant property of mathematicians, and some of the most tedious and unproductive discussions on mathematician bios have been over which nationality gets to claim them. --Trovatore (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC) Side note: These cats are recent creations, just a day or two ago. --Trovatore (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep Many of the bigger subcategories of Category:Mathematicians by field are subdivided by nationality, and this can be parallel to a subcategrization by subfield. According to WP:PETSCAN, there are 112 items in this category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm. I wish they weren't, to be honest. Do we have to repeat the mistake here just because it's made in other fields? (Also, I'm particularly leery of this one because of Georg Cantor and Kurt Gödel, both of whom have been subject to these distasteful nationalistic claim-warrings.)
- Alternatively, where would be a good venue to discuss whether this sort of subcat is a good idea in general? --Trovatore (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science would be the best place for it. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, my specific concern is mathematics, so if it's to be a WikiProject I would think it would be WT:WPM, but it's true that the natural sciences probably have similar dynamics (not much relevance to the work; lots of contributors with ambiguous or complicated nationality). Maybe it's a Village Pump issue? Anyway I'll notify WP Math (neutrally) about the instant discussion; maybe someone will have ideas. --Trovatore (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep Many of the bigger subcategories of Category:Mathematicians by field are subdivided by nationality, and this can be parallel to a subcategrization by subfield. According to WP:PETSCAN, there are 112 items in this category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge. Not a defining intersection. All of these picky little intersection subcategories make it very difficult to categorize articles because you have to remember or look up every time which intersections exist and then spread what should be a single defining characteristic (set theorists) over all the different intersections (especially as academics tend to have multiple nationalities: where they are originally from, where they were educated, where they have held long-term jobs...) Merge the others too as/when they are nominated. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge, but then split category by century I think that by century is a much better way to split up a category that pertains to centuries of scientific and intellectual development and research. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm, the very large majority of the articles are about people from the 20th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, they would be. Set theory was barely getting started in the 19th century, and most workers whose careers started in the 21st century wouldn't have WP articles yet. I'm not sure that's a super-useful subcategorization for this cat. --Trovatore (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm, the very large majority of the articles are about people from the 20th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge, but then split category by century I think that by century is a much better way to split up a category that pertains to centuries of scientific and intellectual development and research. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rough consensus that these categories should not exist, but should we then split by century?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)- It is irrelevant to this CfD., and can be done independently of it. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Mayoral elections in Irvine, California
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: All of the articles in this category redirect to the same page. Not useful for navigation. –Aidan721 (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Aidan721: This is also the case for the following 15 siblings:
- Do you want to nominate those as well (I believe those are all the subcats of Category:Mayoral elections in the United States by city that have this exact issue)? (As was the case with the already nominated category, for some of those siblings, the eponymous article would need to be added to some cats before nominating the cat for deletion.) Felida97 (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm wondering if it would be better to do a manual merge (the non-redirecting, eponymous article, which is already in the parent Category:Local elections in California, to the parents Category:Government of Irvine, California and Category:History of Irvine, California as well as Category:Mayoral elections in the United States [since the direct parent Category:Mayoral elections in the United States by city is a container category]; the redirects, which are all already in a "YYYY United States mayoral elections" category, to Category:Local elections in California, Category:Government of Irvine, California, and Category:History of Irvine, California)? Felida97 (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Side note: This would analoguosly also work for each of the sibling categories I listed above: the eponymous article would be merged to the parents, but with Category:Mayoral elections in the United States instead of the direct parent Category:Mayoral elections in the United States by city; and the redirects, each of which is already in one of the "YYYY United States mayoral elections" and one of the "YYYY state elections" categories, would be merged to all parents except Category:Mayoral elections in the United States by city. Felida97 (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Manual merge? Expand the nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes to both, manually merge and expand the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Experts on refugees
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: I stumbled on this category when I stumbled on the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoe Gardner (migration expert), and I saw a tangent about this category. While it is true that many people on Wikipedia are widely considered as experts in their subject, there are only three categories named "Experts on...": those are for terrorism, North Korea and refugees. Other categories on specialism would be like Category:Psephologists (not "experts on elections") or Category:Seismologists (not "experts on earthquakes") I looked at the articles in this category, and there is a mixture of activists and academics. Both of these can be problematic when we have a category on expertise. If the category was named "pro-refugee activists", that seems better to me, because it is about their position, rather than expertise. If a pro-refugee activist is not academically qualified, I feel that opens the way to having anti-refugee activists also having to be in the category of "experts", as both will be known for activism on the subject, and both will have no academic credentials to prove it. When it comes to academics, obviously they do not pin their colours to the mast quite like activists, but there are also highly qualified people who are known for writings that criticise migration and asylum. Those would fall under the banner of "experts on refugees", and would probably lead to edit wars on exactly who qualifies as an expert. TLDR: Category mixes activists and academics. Should they be separated? Category is based on expertise, which is subjective. In the case of unqualified activists, the category could also be applied to anti-refugee activists, as the category only mentions unquantifiable "expertise", not position. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- There unlike Seismology, there is no Refugelogy, hence the name is fine. As for how to populate it, the only criteria is whether a person is called "expert on refugees", exactly in the same way as other experts are identified. BTW, this term is used in Wikipedia: Nora Sveaass (born 11 December 1949) is a Norwegian psychologist, and an expert on refugees, human rights violations, and psychological consequences of torture --Altenmann >talk 22:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Second issue: there is an official term "migration expert", the term used in Wikipedia, but it looks like it is a more general term. --Altenmann >talk 22:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- At the same time, from the bio "Nora Sveaass (born 11 December 1949) is a Norwegian psychologist, and an expert on refugees, human rights violations, and psychological consequences of torture" it would be tempting to introduce category:Experts on torture, etc. Hence my suggestion:
- create category:Experts on human rights and merge the discussed one there. We have plenty experts on human rights in Wikpedia as well, such as Cecilia Bailliet (born 24 April 1969) is a Norwegian/Argentine/US professor of law who became the United Nations Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity in 2023. --Altenmann >talk 22:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep, I don't see a problem. "Scholars" categories may also contain non-academics, depending on context. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will note that creating a category does not need discussion, but merging a category does.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete, or rename pro-refugee activists. Calling someone an expert is POV, and even worse almost no one in this category is even described that way. It's an arbitrary assortment of people Campaigning on something does not make you an expert, and I'm not sure if there is a relevant academic field. In any case, only one or two of the people here would fit in an academic category. Our two other "Experts on" categories are misnamed and have also been nominated. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agree that human rights activists do not belong in this category. But most articles aren't about human rights activists. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Arab Nationalist Movement breakaway groups
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: This is a more accurate description as many of these groups emerged after the dissolution of the Arab Nationalist Movement. Charles Essie (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment, there are many articles in the category without an obvious link to the Arab Nationalist Movement, it seems purging is necessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The genealogy of every group there can be traced to the Arab Nationalist Movement.
- Arab Nationalist Movement
- Arab Socialist Action Party
- Arab Socialist Action Party – Arabian Peninsula
- Arab Socialist Action Party – Lebanon
- Jordanian Revolutionary People's Party
- Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
- Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine
- Jordanian Democratic Popular Unity Party
- Palestinian Popular Struggle Front
- Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – External Operations
- Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command
- Popular Revolutionary Front for the Liberation of Palestine
- Dhofar Liberation Front
- Organization of Lebanese Socialists
- Popular Front for the Liberation of Bahrain
- Popular Front for the Liberation of Oman
- Popular Front for the Liberation of the Occupied Arabian Gulf
- Revolutionary Democratic Party of Yemen
- Arab Socialist Action Party
- Arab Nationalist Movement
- Charles Essie (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- That leads to very indirect and non-defining relationships. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Maybe a purge is necessary. That said, what do you think about the proposed move? Charles Essie (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: What do you think? Charles Essie (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Charles Essie: while looking at this again I think that an article (possibly a list) would be much more suited for this than a category. In an article the details of the relationships between the organizations can be elaborated. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: I think such a list could probably just be added to the main article as opposed to a separate page. In the meantime, do you agree or disagree with my proposal to rename the category? Charles Essie (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd rather merge it to Category:Arab nationalist organizations. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: I think such a list could probably just be added to the main article as opposed to a separate page. In the meantime, do you agree or disagree with my proposal to rename the category? Charles Essie (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Charles Essie: while looking at this again I think that an article (possibly a list) would be much more suited for this than a category. In an article the details of the relationships between the organizations can be elaborated. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: What do you think? Charles Essie (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Maybe a purge is necessary. That said, what do you think about the proposed move? Charles Essie (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- That leads to very indirect and non-defining relationships. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)- With what and why? Charles Essie (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- To Category:Arab nationalist organizations, because the relationships between the organizations aren't that straightforward. Some organizations that have a direct link in the chart were established as late as 1974. At best one can argue they were established by people who had been involved in the Arab Nationalist Movement in the past. Calling that an offshoot goes too far. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are there any groups you would describe as offshoots? Charles Essie (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Describing to what extent they are offshoots is better done in a list or article than in a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- The main reason I asked is so we know if any of them should be included in the parent category. Charles Essie (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Describing to what extent they are offshoots is better done in a list or article than in a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are there any groups you would describe as offshoots? Charles Essie (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- To Category:Arab nationalist organizations, because the relationships between the organizations aren't that straightforward. Some organizations that have a direct link in the chart were established as late as 1974. At best one can argue they were established by people who had been involved in the Arab Nationalist Movement in the past. Calling that an offshoot goes too far. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- With what and why? Charles Essie (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Charles Essie's most recent proposal? I am not seeing Marcocapelle's comments as an objection to renaming if kept, though he clearly prefers a merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- If kept, I support the rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedia categories named after mass media franchises
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: What's the purpose of this? What "maintenance" is needed for these specifically? It looks as if every category can be restated as a "Wikipedia category named after", e.g. "Wikipedia categories named after countries", "Wikipedia categories named after years", essentially duplicating the category system. But why? If we want a category grouping all mass media franchises, it should be Category:Mass media franchises, not this. Fram (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - afaict, these seem to be an effort to diffuse Category:Eponymous categories. So these are part of that larger tree. Now whether that larger tree should exist, I don't know. This tree's cats are apparently all hidden cats, so apparently they are used somehow for the project, though I don't know how. Further info on this would be welcome. - jc37 09:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
If not kept, merge to Category:Eponymous categories per Jc37.A separate discussion is needed for that parent category. The tree was started by an editor who has not been active for 10 years. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- Comment Part of the reason to not categorize these eponymous categories simply as mass media franchises is because the contents of those categories are not themselves mass media franchises. Similarly why Category:Rock musicians isn't a parent to Category:Elvis Presley even though the Elvis Presley article falls under the "rock musicians" tree. The content of Category:Elvis Presley are not all rock musicians and thus a scheme of wikipedia categories named after Foo was deemed warranted. Some relevant discussions on the matter seemed to have occurred in 2010, such as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 12#Category:Eponymous categories and Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 13#Category:Eponymous categories (in which you, Fram, even took part in). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- In practice however eponymous categories are usually parented to content categories anyway. Likewise Category:Elvis Presley is parented to a family category even though the content of this category is not quite about the family. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Cautiously relisting. If not kept, merge to Category:Eponymous categories? Should we handle this in a wider nomination, or should we start with removing this category?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I notice now that merging is not meaningful. Category:Eponymous categories is a container category of types of eponymous categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I dunno either. There's a bunch of these "named after" cats. Is there a purpose to these? Or are we just highlighting examples of WP:EPON? - jc37 22:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- The purpose is undoubtedly what Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars said, but that does not really work in practice. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I dunno either. There's a bunch of these "named after" cats. Is there a purpose to these? Or are we just highlighting examples of WP:EPON? - jc37 22:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Israeli settlers
[edit]- Propose merging Category:People from Ariel (1 P) to Category:Israeli settlers
- Propose merging Category:People from Beitar Illit (2 P) to Category:Israeli settlers
- Propose merging Category:People from Geva Binyamin (3 P) to Category:Israeli settlers
- Propose merging Category:People from Oranit (1 P) to Category:Israeli settlers
- Propose merging Category:People from French Hill (settlement) (1 P) to Category:Israeli settlers
- Propose merging Category:People from Modi'in Illit (3 P) to Category:Israeli settlers
- Nominator's rationale: merge for now, only 1-3 articles in these categories, this is not helpful for navigation. No objection to recreation of these categories when more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Neo-Nazi propaganda
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Neo-Nazi propaganda to Category:Neo-Nazi publications
- Nominator's rationale: I don't know what is supposed to go in here vs say, the parent category neo-Nazi publications, and the category does not make it clear. The Category:Nazi propaganda, which this is clearly modeled off of, contains wartime propaganda, which makes sense. Given how neo-Nazis operate all of their publications can be understood as propaganda so I am unsure as what the difference between these two categories is supposed to be. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support (i.e. I may change my mind if someone makes a really strong case to keep), for now I do not see how we can make a meaningful distinction. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Actors of European descent in Indian films
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Actors of European descent in Indian films to Category:Expatriate actors in India
- Propose merging Category:European actresses in India to Category:Expatriate actresses in India
- Nominator's rationale: There's no need to isolate actresses of European decent from other expatriate accesses SMasonGarrison 02:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is more complicated than it initially seems. Category:Actors of European descent in Indian films also contains non-expatriate actors, e.g. Tom Alter. And in addition there is a third category that should be included in the nomination, Category:Actresses of European descent in Indian films. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes I don't quite get the rationale, Indian-born actors with (recent/full or part) European ancestry are obviously very different from "expatriate actors" (born outside India and active there). Metamentalist (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Actresses of European descent in Indian films; thoughts on Marcocapelle's points would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Smasongarrison: maybe just purge non-expatriate actors and then move on as proposed? As for the third category, this presumably would become? - see below. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Propose purging and merging Category:Actresses of European descent in Indian films to Category:Expatriate actresses in India
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's updated proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Elements of fiction
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Elements of fiction to Category:Fictional elements
- Nominator's rationale: The new name I'm moving to has previously been deleted. However this category only is for things that are fictional and there are also 5 subcategories that already use "Fictional elements" instead, so why use this name instead? QuantumFoam66 (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- In the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_8#Category:Fictional_elements there was a fair comment that "Fictional elements" might be interpreted as fictional chemical elements. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. I can find some evidence that the term is used in academia for the fictional content of a work of fiction. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - as LaundryPizza03 has noted, "Elements of fiction" seems to be used a lot in academia - in books, textbooks, in teaching, and so on. So I'm hesitant to support this rename, just to make the title conform to "Fictional X" format of some other cats. In general, we should be following what sources say, not what's convenient for us on Wikpedia. So, I'm not strongly opposed, but I think we should pause to look for sourcing to see if we're doing something incorrect here. - jc37 14:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Recipients of the IUPAP Early Career Scientist Prize
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Minor early-career award, not lead-worthy, not defining. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I created this category as I belive it is a useful "basket" to collect the biographies of all the young talents that have received this IUPAP prize—IUPAP is after all the one and only international organisation overarching all disciplines of physics. Many of these people are potentially becoming the next stars in their respective fields of physics. Regards Bibliophilen (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Bibliophilen: please add this to the correct discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Defunct WikiProjects
[edit]Propose deleting the following categories:
- Category:WikiProject Human–Computer Interaction participants
- Category:WikiProject Human Genetic History participants
- Category:WikiProject Homeopathy participants
- Category:WikiProject Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy participants
- Category:WikiProject Green Politics participants
- Category:WikiProject G.I. Joe participants
- Category:Breakfast task force participants
- Category:Bacon task force participants
- Category:WikiProject Floorball participants
- Category:WikiProject Editing trends participants
- Category:WikiProject Demographics participants
- Category:WikiProject Rufus Wainwright participants
- Category:WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia participants
- Category:WikiProject Red Link Recovery participants
- Category:WikiProject Prince Edward Island participants
- Category:WikiProject Plan 9 participants
- Category:WikiProject Pirate Politics participants
- Category:WikiProject Phasmatodea participants
- Category:WikiProject Parapsychology participants
- Category:WikiProject Wikipedia Outreach Participants
- Category:His Dark Materials task force participants
- Category:WikiProject NATO participants
- Category:WikiProject National Health Service participants
- Category:WikiProject Munich participants
- Category:WikiProject Mass spectrometry participants
- Category:WikiProject Ladakh participants
- Category:WikiProject Kollam participants
- Category:WikiProject Kollam will become a C2F, so delete it too
- Category:WikiProject Kingdom of Naples participants
- Category:WikiProject Karachi participants
- Category:WikiProject Kabbalah participants
- Category:WikiProject James Bond participants
- Category:WikiProject Inna participants
- Category:WikiProject Washington University in St. Louis participants
- Category:WikiProject University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill participants
- Category:WikiProject University of Houston participants
- Category:WikiProject University of Connecticut participants
- Category:WikiProject University of Connecticut will become a C2F, so delete it too
- Category:WikiProject SUNY participants
- Category:WikiProject Polytechnic University of the Philippines participants
- Category:WikiProject NCSU participants
- Category:WikiProject MTSU participants
- Category:WikiProject Homeschooling participants
- Category:WikiProject Cornell University participants
- Category:WikiProject Woodworking participants
- Category:WikiProject RNA participants
- Category:Wikipedia for World Heritage participants
- Category:WikiProject villages in Bangladesh
- Category:WikiProject University of Florida participants
- Category:WikiProject University of Central Florida participants
- Category:WikiProject UK Trams participants
- Category:WikiProject Timeline Tracer participants
- Category:WikiProject Theology participants
- Category:ITC productions task force participants
- Category:Idols task force participants
- Category:WikiProject TCR Series participants
- Category:WikiProject Taoism participants
- Category:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church participants
- Category:WikiProject Saskatchewan communities and neighbourhoods participants
- Category:WikiProject_Seamounts_participants
- Category:WikiProject Erie participants
- Category:Galápagos Islands task force participants
- Category:WikiProject Dominica participants
- Category:WikiProject Djibouti participants
- Category:WikiProject Daman and Diu participants
- Category:WikiProject Comoros participants
- Category:WikiProject Colombia participants
- Category:WikiProject Chandigarh participants
- Category:WikiProject Birmingham participants
- Category:WikiProject Americas participants
- Category:WikiProject Albemarle County participants
- Category:WikiProject Frisia participants
- Category:WikiProject Guernsey participants
- Category:WikiProject Guinea-Bissau participants
- Category:WikiProject Liberia participants
- Category:WikiProject Liechtenstein participants
- Category:WikiProject Lowell, Massachusetts participants
- Category:WikiProject Mali participants
- Category:WikiProject Meghalaya participants
- Category:WikiProject Mesoamerica participants
- Category:WikiProject Monaco participants
- Category:WikiProject Nagaland participants
- Category:WikiProject Niue participants
- Category:WikiProject Normandy participants
- Category:WikiProject North Dakota participants
- Category:WikiProject Panama participants
- Category:WikiProject Puducherry participants
- Category:WikiProject River Thames participants
- Category:WikiProject Western Asia participants
- Category:WikiProject Vatican City participants
- Category:WikiProject Vanuatu participants
- Category:WikiProject Houston participants
- Category:WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth participants
- Category:WikiProject Tampa participants
- Category:WikiProject Syracuse, New York participants
- Category:WikiProject Solomon Islands participants
- Category:WikiProject San Marino participants
- Category:WikiProject AfroMuzik participants
- Category:WikiProject Björk participants
- Category:WikiProject Black Metal participants
- Category:WikiProject Crowded House participants
- Category:WikiProject Evanescence participants
- Category:WikiProject Frank Zappa participants
- Category:WikiProject HIM participants
- Category:WikiProject Motörhead participants
- Category:WikiProject Queen participants
- Category:WikiProject Rave participants
- Category:WikiProject Selena Gomez participants
- Category:WikiProject The Clash participants
- Category:WikiProject The KLF participants
- Category:Wikipedia:Personal acquaintances users
Various "participants" categories for defunct WikiProjects. Delete per prior precedent. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Categories tagged and authors notified where still active. It was funny that it turns out one of these was created by myself - I have no memory of doing so, and will let it go through the seven-day discussion with the others rather than G7-ing. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Question What happened to the WikiProjects? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC).
- They were marked as defunct (in Category:Defunct WikiProjects). * Pppery * it has begun... 21:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment As an editor who spent a fair amount of time years ago assessing the status of all existing WikiProjects, the status of a WikiProject can easily change over time. If these are deleted, it shouldn't be a "forever" type of deletion in case editors want to revive the project. It also might be wise to post a notice about this discussion on the talk page of each WikiProject. Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete the Project I was working on that's on this list, the "Category" just relates to having a little box on my user page. That seems fun but also silly and pointless. Let them all die. Salamurai (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:San Marino work group
[edit]- Propose merging Category:San Marino work group to Category:WikiProject San Marino
- Nominator's rationale: Duplicate. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Shouldn't it be reverse merge? Wikipedia:WikiProject San Marino seems to be defunct. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge this way to match the name of the WikiProject page was my thoughts. Same for below. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is precedent for work group pages, e.g. there is a Category:Andorra work group but not a Category:WikiProject Andorra. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- That precedent seems wrong - there isn't a good reason for the category to use a different term from the page. Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Marvel Comics work group goes with Category:Marvel Comics work group, Wikipedia:WikiProject Andorra should go with Category:WikiProject Andorra. Anyway a reverse merge is preferable to the current duplicate set, but I still prefer a forward merge. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is precedent for work group pages, e.g. there is a Category:Andorra work group but not a Category:WikiProject Andorra. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge this way to match the name of the WikiProject page was my thoughts. Same for below. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Liechtenstein work group
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Liechtenstein work group to Category:WikiProject Liechtenstein
- Nominator's rationale: Duplicate. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Shouldn't it be reverse merge? Wikipedia:WikiProject Liechtenstein seems to be defunct. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Dominican
[edit]- Propose deleting Category:Dominican victims of crime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Dominican murder victims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Assassinated Dominican people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Dominican military personnel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Assassinated Dominican military personnel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Nest of ambiguously-named categories containing a grand total of two pages. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete, both articles are already in Category:Assassinated Dominican Republic politicians. If not deleted, rename the last one to Category:Assassinated Dominican Republic military personnel. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Works about economies by country
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: delete, I was planning to propose renaming from "works" to "books" per actual category content, but the subcategories are already directly in Category:Economics books and one of them is nominated below, so this category does not add much value at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Books about the economy of the United Kingdom
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: merge for now, currently only one article in the category, this is not helpful for navigation. No objection to recreation of the category when some more articles are available. The only article is about economic history, hence the history targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:The Joe Rogan Experience guests
[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 16:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Convert Category:The Joe Rogan Experience guests to article List of guests on The Joe Rogan Experience
- Nominator's rationale: The category as applied fails WP:CATDEF in most cases. Someone appearing on The Joe Rogan Experience is not defined by that appearance; it's just one of many talk shows that they attended one time. The category should be listified. Binksternet (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - I actually came here because I felt the category should be proposed for deletion. In the realm of over-categorization, this category violates the Performers_by_production characteristic. Kingturtle = (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: Per @Kingturtle's rationale above. Rift (talk) 06:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I have some doubt on whether it is worth listifying but do not entirely object it. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strong delete. Blatantly contravenes WP:PERFCAT. There's no need for a list article, this seems like WP:LISTCRUFT to me. --woodensuperman 11:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Convert - Yeah, I wanted to make a list but couldn't be bothered so just tossed some random people into a category. It's clearly not category defining but I think a list page would be valid enough. Kline1992 (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I guess we can count this as WP:CSD#G7 then. --woodensuperman 15:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per Woodensuperman, WP:PERFCAT does not need to become WP:LISTCRUFT. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Anime and Cartoon television
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: What even is this category supposed to be? Do I even have to explain why it's so bad? QuantumFoam66 (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Rename - judging by the pages in the category it appears that it is supposed to be for television channels that broadcast anime and cartoons, but that's not obvious at all by the current name. I do think that such a category could be useful though. I don't have any ideas for a new name, so I'm open to ideas, but it should make it clear what the scope is. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Rename per ArtemisiaGentileschiFan. We can probably just add "channels" to the title, so Category:Anime and cartoon television channels (with a small c in cartoon). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Networks featuring animated television shows or Category:Television networks featuring animated shows, per Category:Animated television shows and Category:Television networks. And because the network is not animation, the shows on the network are animated. I'd also be fine with deletion, since I'm not seeing networks categorised by their programming type.- jc37 22:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Television networks featuring animated shows. The naming scheme in Category:Television channels and networks by content is a mess, unfortunately. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Free conventions
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Free conventions to Category:Free goods and services
- Nominator's rationale: Redudant category layer. The only child category is Free festivals SMasonGarrison 03:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Hazardous air pollutants
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: Propose renaming analogous to Category:Persistent organic pollutants under the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution and Category:Persistent organic pollutants under the Stockholm Convention. Other renamings were considered (albeit not advocated for: "I can't think of a way to rename the category to make it make sense. (Regulated Hazardous air pollutants)?? (USEPA Hazardous air pollutants)??") on the talk page all the way back in 2007. Preimage (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging @A876 (original talk page poster) in case you want to weigh in here. Preimage (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete, too US-centric. The list suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete? Not seeing opposition to the rename if kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- Oppose. too US-centric. a very small number of editors might get very excited about initiating new categories for their own countries of residence and/or interest, and then the community would be impeded by dozens of very new and very fragmented categories for this. Sm8900 (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete I presume Sm8900's !vote is meant to be a delete. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
January 23
[edit]Category:Wikipedia oversighters
[edit]- Nominator's rationale: This is redundant to Special:Users, which is automatically maintained and is up to date at all times. The users involved were not asked nor did they consent to being placed in this category, and some of the pages that have been included do not fit into the category (e.g., User:Deskana/Userboxes/oversight since). Deskana has not been an oversighter for many years, and their name should not be included in this category, even peripherally. The category is not maintained, and it is poor use of editor time to maintain a redundant category. Risker (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- NOTE: This category was created before the Single User Login (SUL) conversion, and may have made sense at the time, but has now been supplanted by Special:Users. Risker (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Combined the 2 nominations. Courtesy ping to Risker. - jc37 20:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. It contains editors who are not oversighters (e.g. Deskana) and doesn't contain some editors who are (e.g. me). Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- This category is filled by at least top icons and likely also user boxes. Errors of incorrect inclusion should be corrected instead of used as examples IMO.... Izno (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - If these are deleted per redundancy with Special:Users, I think that there should be a follow-up nom (or add to this one) of most of the cats in Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia user access level, except maybe Stewards and the global ones, since they are off-wiki. - jc37 20:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Won't disagree with you, Jc37. I just focused on the two that were most obviously useless. Should consensus be that they are deleted, then it clears the way for similar actions relating to other parallel categories. Risker (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely. And these go against a fundamental long-standing convention of user categories at CFD: "We should never (even unintentionally) mis-categorize Wikipedians". - jc37 20:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think there is a danger of overreacting here. The logical outcome of that absolutist and fundamentalist approach would be to remove user categories from all user boxes and topicons, in case they become out of date. I prefer Izno's approach, that such user templates should be removed when no longer appropriate. If admins are still given {{administrator}} when appointed,[5] then updating categorisation in this way could be standard practice for some other user access levels. – Fayenatic London 11:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Fayenatic london, why do we want categories that are knowingly and deliberately incomplete? It is completely inappropriate to add topicons, userboxes, or categories to anyone's userpage. (It's okay to remove the topicons and categories when they no longer apply, but userboxes? That's getting pretty much into the weeds there.) But right now, these are unmaintained categories that have been supplanted by the up-to-date and correct Special:Users and are essentially useless. Nobody who's trying to find a checkuser or oversighter should be checking the category; they need to be directed to the places where there's a proper, current list of holders of those permissions. Risker (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
why do we want categories that are knowingly and deliberately incomplete
We give wide latitude to users to decide how they wish to appear in categories. That extends even to user groups, and largely always has. We have complementary categories for every user right, and I'm really struggling to see what the harm is in an incomplete list. (And have already ceded that these should be removed from the pages where they are no longer appropriate.)- This seems to be a WP:CLN type problem to me. Different people have different ways of navigating, and we have different ways of organizing information with each type. And on top of that, different scripts which add supplementary information in different locations. The categories are helpful in this anyway because they already expose the more complete list, and give people who are familiar with categories a place to go when they're looking at a specific user page. Or coming from the other direction, down from "Wikipedia user groups", from which they may have navigated elsewise. Izno (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Risker: why do we want mouldy fish for Christmas? I expressed no opinion on the two nominated categories. I'm just concerned about the direction of travel of the "absolutely" and "fundamental" comments by Jc37, which inter alia would terminate the use of the usercategory parameter in user boxes, because they miscategorise Wikipedians (e.g inactive users as participants). Your last half-sentence is more sensible, so I have acted on it and added a link with instructions at Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia user access level. As for Cyberpower678's edit to my user page after RfA, I took no exception to it, and am surprised that you find it completely inappropriate. I assumed that it was standard practice, and that the topicon was populating Wikipedia administrators, but it appears that I was mistaken on both those counts; the category for administrators is incomplete with 662, and there are only 802 direct transclusions of the topicon,[6] compared to well over 800 admins per Special:Users. – Fayenatic London 17:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- There's a difference here. "This user likes baseball" is reliant only on the user's preference. "This user is checkuser" can change without the user being involved (due to removal due to inactivity or whatever). So in the first case, if they go inactive, the userbox is still applicable. In the second, it's not.
- And yes: "We should not miscategorize Wikipedians" has long been foundation to take into consideration at CfD. (Similar to, we should never miscategorize articles about people.) We should never merge Wikipedians into an inapplicable category, for example, merely to make the name "better" per a cfd discussion. So in those cases, we delete the cat and allow for Wikipedians to decide for themselves if they should belong to a category of a new name. We should not be deciding for them.
- Anyway, in this case, it's simple: categories are about navigation. Having these is a disservice to those looking for a CU or OS editor. Add a link (with an explanation) to Special:Users, at the top of the parent cat, and call it good. - jc37 21:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Risker: why do we want mouldy fish for Christmas? I expressed no opinion on the two nominated categories. I'm just concerned about the direction of travel of the "absolutely" and "fundamental" comments by Jc37, which inter alia would terminate the use of the usercategory parameter in user boxes, because they miscategorise Wikipedians (e.g inactive users as participants). Your last half-sentence is more sensible, so I have acted on it and added a link with instructions at Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia user access level. As for Cyberpower678's edit to my user page after RfA, I took no exception to it, and am surprised that you find it completely inappropriate. I assumed that it was standard practice, and that the topicon was populating Wikipedia administrators, but it appears that I was mistaken on both those counts; the category for administrators is incomplete with 662, and there are only 802 direct transclusions of the topicon,[6] compared to well over 800 admins per Special:Users. – Fayenatic London 17:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Fayenatic london, why do we want categories that are knowingly and deliberately incomplete? It is completely inappropriate to add topicons, userboxes, or categories to anyone's userpage. (It's okay to remove the topicons and categories when they no longer apply, but userboxes? That's getting pretty much into the weeds there.) But right now, these are unmaintained categories that have been supplanted by the up-to-date and correct Special:Users and are essentially useless. Nobody who's trying to find a checkuser or oversighter should be checking the category; they need to be directed to the places where there's a proper, current list of holders of those permissions. Risker (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think there is a danger of overreacting here. The logical outcome of that absolutist and fundamentalist approach would be to remove user categories from all user boxes and topicons, in case they become out of date. I prefer Izno's approach, that such user templates should be removed when no longer appropriate. If admins are still given {{administrator}} when appointed,[5] then updating categorisation in this way could be standard practice for some other user access levels. – Fayenatic London 11:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely. And these go against a fundamental long-standing convention of user categories at CFD: "We should never (even unintentionally) mis-categorize Wikipedians". - jc37 20:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Won't disagree with you, Jc37. I just focused on the two that were most obviously useless. Should consensus be that they are deleted, then it clears the way for similar actions relating to other parallel categories. Risker (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per my comments. Izno (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- See, here's my issue. I don't want to have any categories. I do, however, like having the topicons. Unfortunately, the code for these categories seems to be completely dependent on the topicons. If the two were divorced, I'd be more or less happy. I just don't want to be forced into a category (and have categories cluttering my userpage) just because I have a topicon. The two should not be interdependent. Once upon a time, this sort of made sense. It stopped making sense by the time SUL was complete and the Special:Users page became easily sortable for all types of user groups. If people want to be in the category, they should be free to put themselves in the category; however, it's not reasonable to force people into the category because they have appropriate topicons. Risker (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the idea of having these categories are a leftover relic of times gone by. And, as you note, wiki software has removed the need for them. - jc37 20:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
|nocat=
is routinely provided for user boxes, I see no reason it can't be provided by top icons as well. Izno (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)- These templates (and {{top icon}}) have had it for more than a decade. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- For any that don't, there's always {{Suppress categories|...}}. SilverLocust 💬 03:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- These templates (and {{top icon}}) have had it for more than a decade. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- See, here's my issue. I don't want to have any categories. I do, however, like having the topicons. Unfortunately, the code for these categories seems to be completely dependent on the topicons. If the two were divorced, I'd be more or less happy. I just don't want to be forced into a category (and have categories cluttering my userpage) just because I have a topicon. The two should not be interdependent. Once upon a time, this sort of made sense. It stopped making sense by the time SUL was complete and the Special:Users page became easily sortable for all types of user groups. If people want to be in the category, they should be free to put themselves in the category; however, it's not reasonable to force people into the category because they have appropriate topicons. Risker (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The presence of a category here is inherently misleading. And besides that there's little reason besides curiosity to browse the list of checkusers or oversighters - if you want the attention of a checkuser use {{Checkuser needed}}, if you want something oversighted follow one of the approved processes at Wikipedia:Oversight. In neither case is it helpful to broadcast. Pppery (alt) (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Izno; keep and fix any errant uses of the categories. The potential for misuse of a category is not a reason for deletion except in extreme cases (e.g. when it is most frequently used incorrectly), and this is not one of them. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion was originally closed as "keep" (see Special:Permalink/1267661114), but I reverted my closure in response to concerns.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JJPMaster (she/they) 20:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep Why can't these categories (and similar ones) be automatically updated by a bot? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I suppose they could be, but do we really need a category populated by a bot, to duplicate what you can get by clicking on Special:Users? I ask because, at CFD, don't we tend to try to reduce duplication in the category system? - jc37 06:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep, the category links from user pages may be useful and the hatnotes take care of the accuracy issues. —Kusma (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- If the link is only on a user page of an actual oversighter, how would having a link to a category of oversighters be helpful? Besides, as these are populated by userboxes and other templates, they too could have a link to Special:Users, so there's no reason there for keeping, either... - jc37 14:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- User categories are independent of userboxes and other templates. Userboxes caused one of Wikipedia's worst civil wars almost 20 years ago and some people still avoid them. Why not allow people to show their user group via category if they want to be found that way? —Kusma (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because categories are not "bottom-of-the-page" tags. If an editor wants to note something about themself, they are (generally) free to do so by editing their user page and note that there. Userboxes are merely one of many ways in which one can do so. - jc37 23:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- User categories are independent of userboxes and other templates. Userboxes caused one of Wikipedia's worst civil wars almost 20 years ago and some people still avoid them. Why not allow people to show their user group via category if they want to be found that way? —Kusma (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- If the link is only on a user page of an actual oversighter, how would having a link to a category of oversighters be helpful? Besides, as these are populated by userboxes and other templates, they too could have a link to Special:Users, so there's no reason there for keeping, either... - jc37 14:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm trying to understand the rationale for keeping these categories. "Keep - because it happens to already be there" ? - If these categories were deleted, would they be missed? Not really, no. So does this all boil down to WP:ITSUSEFUL, or even WP:ILIKEIT? - jc37 14:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I find "it's useful" and "I like it" to be perfectly acceptable arguments in discussions not related to encyclopaedic content. Note that WP:ITSUSEFUL actually explicitly states "There are some pages within Wikipedia that are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument." —Kusma (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Tangential query - why "oversighters"? People given oversight are usually called overseers. Grutness...wha? 03:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Grutness I think that stems on how an oversight is a failure to notice something, and to oversee is really to supervise. It's better to coin a neologism than imply some administrators are more privileged than others (which totally isn't true). JayCubby 22:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should the categories be populated by a userbox instead?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToThAc (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- The category is apparently populated by various templates - userboxes included. - jc37 22:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep, not everybody uses ListUsers. JayCubby 22:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Beginnings AD 1-1500
[edit]- Propose merging Category:AD 1 beginnings (1 C) to Category:AD 1
- Propose merging Category:AD 2 beginnings (1 C) to Category:AD 2
- Propose merging Category:AD 3 beginnings (1 C) to Category:AD 3
- Propose merging Category:AD 4 beginnings (1 C) to Category:AD 4
- Propose merging Category:AD 5 beginnings (1 C) to Category:AD 5
- Propose merging Category:AD 6 beginnings (2 C) to Category:AD 6
- Propose merging Category:AD 7 beginnings (1 C) to Category:AD 7
- Propose merging Category:AD 8 beginnings (1 C) to Category:AD 8
- Propose merging Category:AD 9 beginnings (1 C) to Category:AD 9
- Propose merging Category:AD 10 beginnings (1 C) to Category:AD 10
- Propose merging Category:12 beginnings (1 C) to Category:12
- Propose merging Category:14 beginnings (1 C) to Category:14
- Propose merging Category:15 beginnings (2 C) to Category:15
- Propose merging Category:16 beginnings (1 C) to Category:16
- Propose merging Category:17 beginnings (1 C) to Category:17
- Propose merging Category:18 beginnings (1 C) to Category:18
- Propose merging Category:19 beginnings (1 C) to Category:19
- Propose merging Category:20 beginnings (1 C) to Category:20
- Propose merging Category:22 beginnings (1 C) to Category:22
- Propose merging Category:25 beginnings (1 C) to Category:25
- Propose merging Category:27 beginnings (1 C) to Category:27
- Propose merging Category:28 beginnings (1 C) to Category:28
- Propose merging Category:30 beginnings (1 C) to Category:30
- Propose merging Category:31 beginnings (1 C) to Category:31
- Propose merging Category:32 beginnings (1 C) to Category:32
- Propose merging Category:33 beginnings (1 C) to Category:33
- Propose merging Category:34 beginnings (1 C) to Category:34
- Propose merging Category:35 beginnings (1 C) to Category:35
- Propose merging Category:36 beginnings (1 C) to Category:36
- Propose merging Category:37 beginnings (2 C) to Category:37
- Propose merging Category:38 beginnings (1 C) to Category:38
- Propose merging Category:39 beginnings (2 C) to Category:39
- Propose merging Category:40 beginnings (1 C) to Category:40
- Propose merging Category:41 beginnings (1 C) to Category:41
- Propose merging Category:42 beginnings (1 C) to Category:42
- Propose merging Category:43 beginnings (1 C) to Category:43
- Propose merging Category:45 beginnings (2 C) to Category:45
- Propose merging Category:46 beginnings (1 C) to Category:46
- Propose merging Category:47 beginnings (2 C) to Category:47
- Propose merging Category:48 beginnings (1 C) to Category:48
- Propose merging Category:49 beginnings (1 C) to Category:49
- Propose merging Category:50 beginnings (2 C) to Category:50
- Propose merging Category:51 beginnings (1 C) to Category:51
- Propose merging Category:52 beginnings (1 C) to Category:52
- Propose merging Category:53 beginnings (1 C) to Category:53
- Propose merging Category:55 beginnings (2 C) to Category:55
- Propose merging Category:56 beginnings (1 C) to Category:56
- Propose merging Category:58 beginnings (1 C) to Category:58
- Propose merging Category:59 beginnings (1 C) to Category:59
- Propose merging Category:60 beginnings (1 C) to Category:60
- Propose merging Category:61 beginnings (1 C) to Category:61
- Propose merging Category:62 beginnings (1 C) to Category:62
- Propose merging Category:63 beginnings (1 C) to Category:63
- Propose merging Category:64 beginnings (1 C) to Category:64
- Propose merging Category:65 beginnings (1 C) to Category:65
- Propose merging Category:66 beginnings (1 C) to Category:66
- Propose merging Category:67 beginnings (1 C) to Category:67
- Propose merging Category:68 beginnings (2 C) to Category:68
- Propose merging Category:69 beginnings (2 C, 1 P) to Category:69 and move article to Category:60s beginnings
- Propose merging Category:70 beginnings (2 C, 1 P) to Category:70 and move article to Category:70s beginnings
- Propose merging Category:71 beginnings (2 C) to Category:71
- Propose merging Category:1496 beginnings (2 C) to Category:1496
- Propose merging Category:1497 beginnings (2 C) to Category:1497
- Propose merging Category:1498 beginnings (2 C, 1 P) to Category:1498
- Propose merging Category:1499 beginnings (2 C) to Category:1499
- Nominator's rationale: merge/add articles manually, redundant category layer, up to 1500 it consists for the larger part of one or two subcategories only. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge, most of the tiem there are only births and establishments categories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Just a note that this CFD involves almost 1500 categories and is too large to be closed by XFDCloser, our editing tool that we use to close deletion discussions. I think this will have to be handled manually (as mentioned in the nomination?) or it might be possible to program a bot to handle this nomination. But this is not going to be a standard CFD closure. Liz Read! Talk! 01:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Only the articles need to be handled manually (and fortunately there is only few of them). The subcategories can hopefully be handled automatically some way or another. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
1850s in the Bahamas
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:1850s establishments in the Bahamas to Category:19th-century establishments in the Bahamas
- Propose merging Category:1851 establishments in the Bahamas to Category:19th-century establishments in the Bahamas, Category:1851 establishments in the British Empire and Category:1850s establishments in the Caribbean
- Propose deleting Category:1851 in the Bahamas
- Propose deleting Category:1850s in the Bahamas
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge isolated group of categories. – Fayenatic London 14:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Rename/merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Americanized surnames
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Americanized surnames to Category:Anglicized surnames
- Nominator's rationale: The main article for this page is anglicisation of names. "American" isn't a language and many of these surnames are used in other countries than the US, including Canada, the UK, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand. ★Trekker (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Someone should check the articles too. Bell (surname) and Byers (surname) seem to be plain English-language surnames. And it is not clear if Blomquist really deviates from an original Swedish form. But better have it checked by a native English speaker. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Listify - For the reasons illustrated above. This just looks like WP:OR (editors making a subjective determination for inclusion). This just cries out for explanations and references. Neither of which can be done with categories, per WP:BEFORECAT/WP:CLN. - jc37 17:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - As an aside, these fall under what I call "before and after" categories. (This was that, but now, it's this.) The clearest example of which is: renaming of people, companies, countries, etc. An article is one entry in a category. And can't show an individual relationship with another article (unless we started making innumerable 2-article categories). We should just establish that such categories are disallowed and are better as lists. Well... We do in WP:CLN#Disadvantages of a category, numbers 2 and 7 point to this, for example. But apparently we need to mke this clearer, I guess. - jc37 18:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
British families needing geographical disambiguation
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Lloyd family of Birmingham to Category:Lloyd family (Birmingham)
- Category:Lindsay family of Evelix to Category:Lindsay family (Evelix)
- Category:Long family of Wiltshire to Category:Long family (Wiltshire)
- Category:Wright family of Nottingham to Category:Wright family (Nottingham)
- Category:Parker family of Browsholme to Category:Parker family (Browsholme)
- Category:Anderson family of Newcastle-upon-Tyne to Category:Anderson family (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)
- Category:Booth family of Dunham Massey to Category:Booth family (Dunham Massey)
- Category:Eliot family of St Germans to Category:Eliot family (South England)
- Category:Burial sites of the Eliot family of St Germans to Category:Burial sites of the Eliot family (South England)
- Propose renaming Category:Lloyd family of Birmingham to Category:Lloyd family (Birmingham)
- Nominator's rationale: We've recently renamed any US state subcategories of Category:American families by state or territory that need disambiguation by state to put the state in parentheses at the end. These are the only British categories that fall outside this rubric (there are plenty with "England" or other places in parentheses). Seems like following that US precedent would be good. A couple of these have articles that use this format, such as Eliot family (South England) and Lloyd family (Birmingham). Mike Selinker (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support parentheses for consistency. I do not have an opinion about the geographical designations. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Sinclair Broadcast Group
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Sinclair Broadcast Group to Category:Sinclair, Inc.
- Nominator's rationale: Corporate name; "Sinclair Broadcast Group" is just a subsidiary Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- According to Sinclair Broadcast Group it is the trade name (i.e. common name) rather than a subsidiary. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- If the article gets moved as you requested already at Talk:Sinclair Broadcast Group#Requested move 23 January 2025, then the category would also get speedy renamed per Wikipedia:C2D. There's no point to discussing the category separately and concurrently to the article, so request this discussion just be closed. postdlf (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- That makes sense. I have copied my comment above to the RM discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Olivetti S.p.A.
[edit]- Propose renaming Category:Olivetti S.p.A. to Category:Olivetti
- Nominator's rationale: like the main article Olivetti InterComMan (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Possibly include a disambiguator after all, e.g. Category:Olivetti (company) in order to avoid that people with surname Olivetti are added. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, this discussion should also be done for the page then. InterComMan (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. When people are adding content to the article they must see the article. That is different with categories, one can add articles to a category without seeing the category page. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, this discussion should also be done for the page then. InterComMan (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Add a disambiguator?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:20th-century deputy heads of government of Liechtenstein
[edit]- Propose splitting Category:20th-century deputy heads of government of Liechtenstein to Category:20th-century government ministers of Liechtenstein and Category:Deputy prime ministers of Liechtenstein
- Propose splitting Category:21st-century Liechtenstein government councillors to Category:21st-century Liechtenstein politicians and Category:Government ministers of Liechtenstein
- Nominator's rationale: Dual merge for now. There's no need to diffuse the parent category to this degree. SMasonGarrison 00:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: I disagree. Government ministers are a very notable role within Liechtenstein and should have their own century categories. There is also enough people with this role (page created or not) to warrant it's existence. Deputy heads of government, while technically a government minister, is also an entirely different role. TheBritinator (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Did I say anything about notability? I said that there's no need to diffuse this category by century. We don't keep categories around just because the pages might exist. SMasonGarrison 00:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, I disagree. There is more than enough people to warrant it being split by century. It being split this way also makes for much simpler navigation. TheBritinator (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Furthermore, I based my decision making for these categories similar to that of Category:20th-century vice presidents of the United States, for example. Why is this acceptable while mine is not? They serve the same purpose. TheBritinator (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:Otherstuffexists isn't a helpful argument. Why does there need to be 3 layers of politicians intersecting by century? SMasonGarrison 23:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not the argument I was making. I don't believe you have given a extensive rationale, so I am asking for clarification. TheBritinator (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- "I don't believe you have given a extensive rationale" what level of rational do you need here? You are making a comparison to a much larger more developed category that covers more than 2 centuries. I've asked you to explain why we need this intersection, and thus far you've only pointed to other categories needing it. Not this one. SMasonGarrison 01:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- A good amount of these people are only notable for one role. As such, the intersection is ideal to make the navigation flow well with Category:21st-century Liechtenstein politicians, for example. Otherwise it will make it so they are not as easily found. My comparison is valid as it does in fact serve the same role, is that enough of an explanation? TheBritinator (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- "I don't believe you have given a extensive rationale" what level of rational do you need here? You are making a comparison to a much larger more developed category that covers more than 2 centuries. I've asked you to explain why we need this intersection, and thus far you've only pointed to other categories needing it. Not this one. SMasonGarrison 01:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not the argument I was making. I don't believe you have given a extensive rationale, so I am asking for clarification. TheBritinator (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:Otherstuffexists isn't a helpful argument. Why does there need to be 3 layers of politicians intersecting by century? SMasonGarrison 23:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Furthermore, I based my decision making for these categories similar to that of Category:20th-century vice presidents of the United States, for example. Why is this acceptable while mine is not? They serve the same purpose. TheBritinator (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, I disagree. There is more than enough people to warrant it being split by century. It being split this way also makes for much simpler navigation. TheBritinator (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Did I say anything about notability? I said that there's no need to diffuse this category by century. We don't keep categories around just because the pages might exist. SMasonGarrison 00:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: I disagree. Government ministers are a very notable role within Liechtenstein and should have their own century categories. There is also enough people with this role (page created or not) to warrant it's existence. Deputy heads of government, while technically a government minister, is also an entirely different role. TheBritinator (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Splitting by century does not seem to be particularly useful here, in part because they largely overlap. Many politicians were active in both the 20th and the 21st century. Place Clichy (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some of them being active before has no correlation to these categories. Wikipedia:Categorizing articles about people states that categories should be added to people for what they are notable for. TheBritinator (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Precisely, are they not above all notable for being deputy prime minister, or government minister, resp.? Place Clichy (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- In different centuries, yes. TheBritinator (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Precisely, are they not above all notable for being deputy prime minister, or government minister, resp.? Place Clichy (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some of them being active before has no correlation to these categories. Wikipedia:Categorizing articles about people states that categories should be added to people for what they are notable for. TheBritinator (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)- Oppose
- The category creator makes a fair argument and there's enough persons to populate the categories. I don't find the evidence to support merging the categories convincingly outweighs the argument to keep as is. Nayyn (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Extinctions since 1500
[edit]- Propose merging Category:Extinctions since 1500 to Category:Holocene extinctions
- Nominator's rationale: merge, the year 1500 is an arbitrary cutoff. If there is no opposition I will add the subcategories to the nomination for renaming from "since 1500" to "Holocene". Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose 1500 may be arbitrary, but it is the date used by the International Union for Conservation of Nature to track extinct species (they do not include species known to have gone extinct prior to 1500). 1500 is used because it's a round number near the start of the Age of Discovery, when (European) naturalists would have been able document species before they went extinct, and it represents a date after which human influence played a major role in all subsequent extinctions (there are extinctions prior to that date where humans played a major role, and there are likely some extinction after that date where.
- I would not be strongly opposed to renaming the category to Category:Recent extinctions, which follows List of recently extinct fishes, List of recently extinct mammals and several other sublists in the entries at Lists of extinct species. However, I do feel that would just obfuscate the fact that 1500 is exactly the date chosen for an extinction to be considered "recent".
- Contemporaneous documentation is what distinguishes prehistory from history. There is a whole category tree for Category:Prehistoric life; it is under Category:Extinct taxa, and categorization between the prehistoric/extinct categories is pretty messy (many prehistoric organisms are in extinct categories). But I think "recent extinctions in which humans played a major role" is something that is worthy of categories as is "prehistoric extinctions that occurred before humans evolved" (while recognizing that there is a grey area where humans may have played a role in some prehistoric extinctions once they had evolved (but there are also many extinctions during the Holocene where humans didn't play a major role)). Plantdrew (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Plantdrew's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support in principle. Without being a subject-matter expert, to Plantdrew's point, it seems that the IUCN definition is covered by Category:IUCN Red List extinct species, which makes this category redundant if true. Fits into WP:OCMISC / (borderline) WP:ARBITRARYCAT. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Aidan721's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Older discussions
[edit]The above are up to 7 days old. For a list of unclosed discussions more than seven days old, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All old discussions.
For older closed and unclosed discussions, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Previous 8 to 21 days.