Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 18

< December 17
December 19 >

December 18

Category:Louisiana Christian Wildcats volleyball

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) HouseBlastertalk 03:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One redirect is not useful for a category tree. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Mauritanian male actors by medium

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:Mauritanian male actors. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 03:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful for navigation to have a single category in here. Mason (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Mixed-gender bands

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 27#Category:Mixed-gender bands

Category:1st-century Irish poets

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 27#Category:1st-century Irish poets

Category:Jews and Judaism in Portland, Maine

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 * Pppery * it has begun... 01:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The articles are already present in the other two categories where they are more relevant. That leaves only Levey Day School which would fit better in Category:Jews and Judaism in Maine as it is the only such school in MAINE, not just in Portland. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and manually recategorize the article. Jews and Judaism categories should be mainly container categories (with biographies in a Jews subcat). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Prominent Jewish citizens of a specific place should be included in the city categories, especially when they're notability is in part derived from being elected in that location. The name of the category is "Jews and Judaism," which definitely implies that it includes individuals.--User:Namiba 18:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Except the people in this particular category don't have much to do with Portland with respect to Judaism or them being Jewish. They are either politicians or businessmen who are Jewish and who live or lived there or have a connection NOT related to their Jewish identity. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that these people belong in which ever sutiable categories in Category:People from Portland, Maine, by occupation as well as Category:American Jews from Maine. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per @Namiba Mason (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mason, don't you think Namiba's logic is rather flawed? At least with regards to the individuals? Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also read it including people the same what that Namiba did. For me, I think that key information being lost is the relationship to this city, and would be inconsistent with the current category scheme. We have 49 categories in [[Category:Jews and Judaism in the United States by city]],
    I don't like the current structure as lumping Jews and Judaism together at the city level is ambiguous. However, we have 49 categories in [[Category:Jews and Judaism in the United States by city]], so I think a change in scope or splitting could work. TLDR: The problem is bigger than portland. Mason (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I agree it is. The name alone could be interpreted as all things Jewish can be fitted into them. But that isn't really a good approach IMO. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My main issue with this category is that similar categories are diffused into subcategories where possible. Doing the same to this category leaves only one page. It is why I think this particular category is redundant. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's entirely reasonable to want to navigate to this topic for a particular city. Jahaza (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom; the first target category is actually Category:Jews from Maine. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @LaundryPizza03, the category was moved a few days after I nominated it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, to Category:Jews from Maine (and Category:Synagogues in Maine). That's sliced too thin that it loses purpose. I believe that WP:FINALRUNG gives an appropriate guideline. Place Clichy (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realize that this is part of a category (Category:Jews and Judaism in the United States by city) which includes nearly 50 cities, right?--User:Namiba 13:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Namiba, those categories didn't contain people but culturally-important buildings or historical events or places. They did not before beyond a handful altogether. The Portland, Maine category was the only one with so many people in it. I checked before I went ahead and populated the categories in Category:American Jews by state or territory. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 American jurists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 * Pppery * it has begun... 01:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category. Has only three articles which are present in more specific categories of Category:American jurists. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete manually merge to Category:20th-century people by occupation, diffusing by century is mainly interesting when the subcategories go decently back in history. Just a 20th century category is not helpful. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose and populate. There's a much larger tree. Category:20th-century jurists Mason (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case, I think there should be more than one such category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Omnis Scientia Do you mean that there should be 21st-century american jurists? because I'm not 100% sure about what you mean. Mason (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mason. Yes I do. I think it can run from the 17th-century to the 21st-century which is approximately how far back the centuries go in Category:American lawyers by century and Category:American judges by century. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha, well, before you do make some more, let's see how the cfd pans out. It's possible that this still gets deleted/merged. Mason (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure thing! Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Omnis Scientia: it becomes a bit of a chicken-and-egg discussion, because I will surely withdraw my vote if 17th to 19th century siblings can be populated decently. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I have been wondering about that because "jurists" refer to judges, lawyers, and legal academics. So if such categories are made, they would be diffusing categories and would have two subcategories each from Category:American lawyers by century and Category:American judges by century and legal academics who don't fit in either category. What do you think, @Marcocapelle? Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is a fair point. It would be better to leave the lawyers and judges directly in categories by occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 about black people

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 The consensus is less clear for "white" and "black" than the middle three, but the specific merge proposed here has no support other than the nominator. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think we should upmerge these categories or at the very least think carefully about how to name and parent them. Right now the songs seem to focus more on stereotypes but the current name is really broad. we could potentially rename them to better convey that focus. Mason (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A song being about a particular people group does not necessarily equate that the song is itself about “race” or “ethnicity”. Additionally, upmerging here is problematic for ethical reasons as it could be seen as a form of erasure.4meter4 (talk) 06:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question. How is it erasure? @4meter4: In my proposal, I'd made it clear that the upmerge needs to include another category related to their ethnicity. I was concerned about the same issue you had raised. Mason (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the middle three, as these are about recognized super-ethnicities. I guess the first category implicitly means African-Americans and the last category implicitly means American people of European descent, but the songs do not explicitly say so, so I am not sure what to do with them. Maybe split the parent category in Category:Songs about ethnicity and Category:Songs about skin color and merge the blacks and whites into the latter? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. That's a helpful distinction and makes sense to me because those middle three have clear scope. I think that the black and white categories have a place, as they each capture distinct things. I'm going to look around at the Category:Black culture and Category:White culture categories to find some inspiration... I thing that renamed the black category to Category:Songs about Black culture could work, perhaps combined with the category split. However, I don't think that would work for the white category (like Category:Songs about White culture, or Category:Songs about White American culture). I think that those will eventually warp into songs about white supremcey, instead of something more neutral. Mason (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Foul-smelling chemicals

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 * Pppery * it has begun... 01:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category does not specify strict or objective inclusion criteria (WP:NPOV). What is considered foul-smelling by someone would not necessarily be seen as such by others. Pochitat (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too subjective, this can only lead to WP:OR. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The answer would be to add strict inclusion criteria such as removing any article not sourced to be generally foul-smelling to people, not complete deletion. While it cannot be totally shared by all of humankind, there are definitely some chemicals that the majority of humans will perceive as foul-smelling. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per subjective. Mason (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then the category has to be renamed to Category:Chemicals perceived as foul-smelling by the majority of humans and each entry would need to include a reliable source confirming that the substance is actually perceived as such by at least 4.037 billion people. Pochitat (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too many kinds of "foul" odors; for example, hydrogen sulfide smells very different from valeric acid or trimethylamine. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Discussion extends to Category:Sweet-smelling chemicals. I think categorizing chemicals with distinct and/or intense odours is valuable, especially when their odour is relevant in how they're used (perfumes, flavouring, gas-leak indicator, etc). Perhaps a name like Category:Fragrant chemicals or Category:Odorous chemicals. This would be similar to the Category:Pigments. Collecting them in multiple categories with subjective inclusion criteria is not useful. There are several compounds that are 'notably' foul-smelling, and could be included as a smaller subcategory. Examples being putresceine and cadaverine. ― Synpath 02:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but perhaps rename. I looked at some, and notable smell was mentioned in all, & sometimes referenced. I doubt unpleasant odour is actually as subjective as some claim, though I'm sure it depends on the concentration. Any research on that, Marcocapelle etc.? Odour is a significant property of many chemicals. Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep every compound in this category is noted as being foul smelling, usually in sources such as the MSDS sheet. Foul odour is a notable characteristic of a chemical compound. Meodipt (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely subjective (I rather like the odor of pyridine) and technically incorrect as the perception depends on concentration. Its a category for giggling kids vs scientists. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Yes subjective and more of a category for laypeople than professional chemists. And indeed there are various compounds that are unpleasant at high concentrations but in lower amounts contribute to the unique flavors of things like durian and camembert. But that doesn't make this any less useful as a way to categorize these substances, there are relatively few compounds overall that are noted for their particularly unpleasant odor. And certain things like thioacetone and putrescine, or the various components of malodorants used as "less-than-lethal" chemical agents, there is not much subjectivity to it, putrescine for instance is repellent to most animals as a marker of death and decay. Also looking at the literature the main concern with these compounds is accidental chemical spill situations, very foul smelling compounds are extremely difficult to decontaminate, and major spills can make whole buildings uninhabitable etc. Meodipt (talk) 06:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Executive ministers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. I find Rosguill's comment that There's essentially a consensus to merge, but some disagreement about where to merge to correct, but I have to close this somehow, so here we go. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT. Duplicate category, no useful difference between the two. Place Clichy (talk) 07:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Executive minister redirects to Minister (government). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would make sense to have them all in one category and Category:Ministerial offices seems a good place for it. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It would make sense indeed and I support merging. I think it's OK to have this content at the root of Category:Government ministers, as all other more specific content is dispersed in the child categories. However I'm fine if consensus establishes that it should be at another location. Place Clichy (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's essentially a consensus to merge, but some disagreement about where to merge to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 children by occupation

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. There is, however, consensus to purge the non-occupations. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete as just plain completely incorrect in every sense. These do not count as "occupations". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Superheroes, soldiers, slaves, students, prostitutes are somehow not occupations? Your argument doesn't make much sense. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do a rundown:
So we have 3 or 4 (out of 6) that actually belong here. But there is a real-world Category:Children by occupation, so weak keep. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: Please keep in mind that Category:Slaves was only sorted into "People by occupation" by AHI-3000, the person who was making all these incorrect categories in the first place. In other words, it's flat-out wrong. I would also disagree that "superhero" counts as an occupation, but even if it was, that's basically one, which is not enough for a category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered WP:ANI? They seem to have a long history of CfD nominations and warnings about disruptive category-related edits. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Care to explain what rules I'm violating? I've never been warned by any admins or mods here. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me? This is not a good argument, that edits made by me or anyone else in particular are inherently "wrong", this is a needless ad hominem. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: I'm not super experienced at doing so, but I would easily support it being listed there. I think most would agree that the sheer amount of totally incorrect category creations goes into WP:CIR territory even if done in good faith. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any valid reasons why you think slaves and superheroes are not occupations without invoking my irrelevant editing history? AHI-3000 (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this relisted? I thought consensus was pretty clearly in favor of merger? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only one vote was stated in favor of merging. You and I both basically said "keep", unless you changed your mind? AHI-3000 (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back, I am now more split. I agree with the assessment that only soldiers and prostitutes, and possibly slaves, are truly occupations, and that there should be no problem in merging but I do not unconditionally support it. There is still splitting hairs on whether superheroes are an occupation, but schoolchildren and prodigies are definitely not. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per AHI-3000's rationale. These are occupations. Dimadick (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • E.g. school children and superheroes surely aren't occupations. Even if the category is kept those subcategories should be moved out. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Who claims that "superhero" is not an occupation? If Category:Superheroes is any indication, do Category:Fictional characters by law enforcement occupation and Category:Fictional vigilantes not count as occupations? AHI-3000 (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • A superhero is a stock character. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Stock characters can be a type of profession, such as mad scientists. AHI-3000 (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      An occupation, in a job sense, is something people do to earn money. In almost all cases, being a superhero is done on a volunteer basis solely to fight evil. One becomes a superhero or supervillain due to ideology, similar to a vigilante, not to earn money. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This discussion is showing that this is a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT - if we can't even agree on what belongs where in the context of a CfD then the resulting category is doomed. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 murdered children

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 * Pppery * it has begun... 01:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:NONDEF. Incorrectly conflates a plot situation with a defining trait. This is about as defining as "characters killed by a falling piano". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Can you cool it down with these arbitrary nominations? A character being murdered isn't "non-defining" at all. Also see Category:Murdered children. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed and to Category:Fictional murdered people. Intersection without any special significance or necessity to diffuse (WP:TRIVIALCAT/WP:NARROWCAT). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Mason (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not at all the same concept, as the other category does suggest criminal activity. Dimadick (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone still buy this fallacious argument that the nature of this category is "non-defining"? When a character is murdered in a story, that's considered a pretty big deal that defines the character and their role in the story. Doubly so if the victim is a kid, hence why Category:Fictional child deaths is a thing. Plus we have Category:Murdered children for this phenomenon happening in the real world too, so there's that. AHI-3000 (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will submit that it's more of a WP:NARROWCAT than non defining. I still think it should be dual merged, but not necessarily removing the idea that murder itself is non-defining. The intersection is still unnecessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Four traditions of geography

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 classic WP:1AM situation in which GeogSage has made repeated comments in favor of this category but failed to convince any of the other participants of their position. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Four traditions of geography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: limited growth (four). fgnievinski (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This was a category created by me so I can explain my rationale. This is a container category, and I had tried to explain on the category page the justification for the categories existence, but fgnievinski removed it in a recent edit. The explanation was:
"Geography is an extremely broad field. Because of this, many view the various definitions of geography proposed over the decades as inadequate. To address this, William D. Pattison proposed the concept of the "four traditions of geography" in 1964.[1][2][3] These traditions are (1) the spatial or locational tradition, (2) the man–land or human–environment interaction tradition, (3) the area studies or regional tradition, and (4) the earth science tradition.[1][2][3] These concepts are broad sets of geography philosophies bound together within the discipline. They are one of many ways geographers organize the major sets of thoughts and philosophies within the discipline.[1][2][3]"
Tldr; the four traditions are one of the major methods for organizing geography in the peer-reviewed literature. The four categories within the four traditions might have their own pages, but this higher order category will only have the four.
Because of this prominence in the field outside Wikipedia as a means to organize the discipline of geography, I strongly oppose deletion of the category. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But there's already Category:Subfields of geography and Four traditions of geography. fgnievinski (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I created "Subfields of geography" as a category to contain two different broad methods of organizing geography. This was in response to discussion in how to make them fit within the broader category of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. The two methods for organizing geography within the category of subfields of geography Category:Branches of geography and the four traditions of geography. These two ways of organizing the discipline are distinct, but have tremendous overlap. Generally, the four traditions are more theoretical and historic, while the branches are more applied. On the main geography page, I included both methods when discussing ontology of geography, both as a compromise between what was already written, and to be as comprehensive as possible. There are more ways to organize geography then the four traditions and the branch system (which is based on the UNESCO Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems organization of geography), and it would not necessarily be wrong if someone wanted to make a category using another organizational system. I tried to organize both the main page of geography, and these categories, based on peer reviewed literature on the topic. To keep things clean in higher categories, I made the subfields of geography to hold both, and hopefully any future higher level organizational methods.
The book "The Philosophy of Geo-Ontologies: Applied Ontology of Geography (SpringerBriefs in Geography)" by Timothy Tambassi is one I would recommend and point to on this issue. Specifically, the passage "Such a feature represents a fundamental issue also for the geographical debate. Pattinson (1963), for example, includes it among the four main traditions of geography, naming it as “spatial analysis”. More recently, Sala (2009) splits the whole geographical domain into three different sub-areas, distinguishing among human, physical, and technical geography." GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I continue to oppose the deletion of this category. Outside of Wikipedia, the four traditions of geography are one of the strongest supported ways of organizing geography, as I believe I demonstrated. The other best supported method from my review is the branch model, with the exiting category of Category:Branches of geography, has some overlap but is more hotly debated within the literature. Currently, it is the UNESCO model with three branches, but there are other competing organization attempts. The existing organization of having both methods under the higher category of "Category:Subfields of geography" was created by me to satisfy standardization with other categories within Category:Subfields by academic discipline based on feedback. Simply dumping all the categories into subfields would only be internally consistent within Wikipedia, but is lacking strong support in external literature. This is a violation of Wikipedia:No original research on the organization of geography in my opinion. Having the branch and tradition models within this higher category creates two similar but not identical overlapping trees which is the compromise to this problem I used. If these categories are to be consolidated, the four traditions have the strongest case to remain in my opinion after reviewing the literature.
Other then opinions, I have seen no argument for why the other categories are more appropriate, or why we should not have multiple categories.
Following @Marcocapelle suggestion, we could change the name to "Pattison's Four Traditions of Geography," but the page Four traditions of geography was changed from that following a suggestion in this discussion.
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as a non-defining characteristic. If kept, rename such that Pattison becomes part of the category name. Neither the four traditions nor Pattison even have their own article. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Four Traditions are on the main geography page, I did not think they needed their own page written about them any more then the category of the branches of geography, or subfields of geography, but it certainly might warrant consideration. After including them on the main page and making them a category, I figured any page I made would just be nominated to be merged into the main geography page. However, they are a core part of how the discipline is taught, and are referenced in several peer-reviewed articles and academic books to organize the discipline. Pattison is on my list of pages to create, there are several geographers who are missing pages that probably need one. While the four traditions are usually just called "The Four Traditions of Geography," I have found at least one peer reviewed journal titled "Teaching Geography's four traditions with Poetry" by Daniel P. Donaldson that refers to them as "William Pattison's four traditions of geography" within the abstract. While I think it is unnecessary, I can't say that including William Pattison's name is completely inappropriate. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 06:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I think a page about them would be EXTREMELY helpful. Mason (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mason I've started actually in one of my sandboxes. Currently trying to decide how much to take and re-arrange from the main geography page section on them. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Mason,@Fgnievinski,@Marcocapelle. I created a page for the category out of the section in the geography page titled William Pattison's four traditions of geography. This is now the main article for the disputed category. Please feel free to comment or help edit. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I'd suggest following WP:COMMONNAME and adopt the simpler title Four traditions of geography. fgnievinski (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, the name choice was based on @Marcocapelle suggestion here to include Pattison in the name of the category. I made a redirect page already from the four traditions of geography. Should it move? GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fgnievinski Following your suggestion, the page has been moved to the Four traditions of geography. Not sure if this changes anyones opinion regarding the category, as I still strongly oppose deletion on the grounds that this is a very commonly employed broad method for organizing geography within the literature. Alternative methods of organizing geography are not more or less legitimate, so there may be other similar categories that will have tremendous overlap (we could actually make at least five high level categories based on the literature, including the Five themes of geography, and key concepts, but I settled on just making branches and traditions with a higher container to hold the two methods). GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your efforts. However, not all notable concepts deserve a homonym category in Wikipedia. I still think it's a case of overcategorization and a simple list or article would suffice. fgnievinski (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Geography is a big field, with multiple methods of subdivision. My issue here is that of the categories we have, the Four Traditions is the one with the strongest and longest peer-reviewed body of literature supporting it. Fundamentally, the two methods of organizing the discipline we have, branches and the four traditions, are the most well documented. Branches however have multiple competing models, and the one used is based on the UNESCO one from 2009, which makes use of systems going back to the 1700s, but not those systems exactly. Picking one over the other is difficult, and these are just the WESTERN methods of organizing the discipline. Simply dumping them into the higher category of "subfields of geography" or filling up "branches" haphazardly is borderline original research on ontology of geography. The two categories within "subfields" are the best way I could come up with to prevent original research, while respecting that the four traditions have the strongest backing within the peer-reviewed literature. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This concept has been proved notable, but nobody has proved that it needs a category over other ways of subdividing the discipline of geography. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the main reason why I liked the category. Since the 1960s, this has been one of the main ways we subdivide the discipline, from a peer-reviewed perspective. There are several other proposed methods, and I created two categories to respect the two most prominent ones in the literature. The "other ways of subdividing the discipline" generally have less literature backing them up individually, with the four traditions having some of the longest prominence. The branch model (the other major category) is similar to the four traditions, however it is much more hotly debated. I went with the the most prominent method within the literature for that one, but that only goes back to around 2009. While a model including them goes back to the 1700s, it is not really used either and has been heavily refined. Within geography, the four traditions are one of the "constants" in how we organize and teach the discipline over the last century. Other ways of organizing it then the two high level container categories we have already are borderline original research, and I can't find a strong reason to choose one of the other organization methods OVER the four traditions.
    GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c Pattison, William D. (1964). "The Four Traditions of Geography". Journal of Geography. 63:5 (5): 211–216. doi:10.1080/00221346408985265.
  2. ^ a b c Robinson, J. Lewis (1976). "A New Look at the Four Traditions of Geography". Journal of Geography. 75 (9): 520–530. doi:10.1080/00221347608980845.
  3. ^ a b c Murphy, Alexander B. (27 June 2014). "Geography's Crosscutting Themes: Golden Anniversary Reflections on 'The Four Traditions of Geography'". Journal of Geography. 113 (5): 181–188. doi:10.1080/00221341.2014.918639. S2CID 143168559.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This discussion doesn't seem to be moving much so I'll comment again. Geography is hard to subdivide, and the page was a mess of different subdivision approaches that didn't match literature until recently. Categories were in a similar disheveled situation, and several sub categories still are possibly redundant or unclear in hierarchy. The two categories under Category:Subfields of geography exist to organize the subcategories in a manner consistent with the external peer reviewed literature, and the category:Subfields of geography itself exists to be consistent within other disciplines in Wikipedia. Deleting the Four Traditions would require the deletion or major reorganization of several other categories, and simply dumping them into the Subfields of geography, or branches of geography, would not be consistent with external literature. To delete these high level categories, a reorganization of all subcategories of geography needs to be proposed that is internally and externally consistent.
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For this category to be deleted, we will need to have to do tremendous overhauls to the other high level categories in geography. The existing three high level categories are a compromise with Wikipedia's internal consistency and the peer reviewed literature. Reorganizing this will need to be carefully considered to avoid being original research on the ontology of geography. I believe I have given enough literature to back up why I don't think this should be deleted at all, but as it was relisted, am hoping this time around we can get discussion on this that addresses the implications of deleting it and relies on outside literature. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Britain's German allies during the American Revolution

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 to upmerge. There is consensus to rename (i.e. the category shouldn't be kept at it's current title), but not on the rename target, so I'll go with the nom's target, Category:German allies of the British Army during the American Revolution. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think that this category is supposed to be the British version of "Category:German personnel of the Continental Army‎". The current name is not good/clear.... I am extremely interested in alternative name suggestions. Mason (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am against any renaming. :Britain's German allies during the American Revolution is fine. Creuzbourg (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't follow any of the category naming structure norms. "Britain's" is not easy to parse and I can think of no other category that does it this way. Mason (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom (or similar). It is not appropriate to merge those who fought for the British and those who fought for independence. "Mercenary" is not an appropriate description, because it carries the wrong connotation. It was the practice of various German princes to have armies which they hired out to the British. The King's German Legion were Hanoverian troops, the Elector of Hanover being king of GB, but they were often in British pay. Something similar applies to Hessian troops, which were hired by the British from Hesse; similarly Brunswick, Nassau, and other states. Some of these were captured by the Americans and settled in America at the end of the Revolutionary War. Suggest Category:German troops in British pay during the American Revolution. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Outer space in fiction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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... 01:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Outer space in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Completely duplicative category created recently that is the same as Category:Fiction about outer space. We don't need two categories about the same thing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Obvious duplicate. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. One category is in the Category:Fiction by setting category tree and the other is in Category:Fiction by topic category tree. A work can be set in outer space but not be about outer space. Likewise, a work can be about outer space but not set in outer space. My personal preference would be to keep the setting category over the topical category if we were to remove one over the other, but I personally believe there is an important distinction between the two.4meter4 (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We have "works set in outer space" for ones that are set there, and "fiction about outer space" for ones that are about it. It's still duplicative of one, the other or both, depending on the work in question. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Works set in outer space is a "container category". (all works pages are set-up that way) Whereas Outerspace in fiction is not and is a catch all category as all "in fiction" categories are set up that way.4meter4 (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We do not require a "catch-all" category, as that would violate WP:NONDEF. Whatever is in the category must be primarily about outer space. For example, if a work had a drawing of outer space on someone's lunchbox, it does not belong, period. This is encompassed by "fiction about outer space". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then what is the point of the entire "in fiction" category grouping? There is a whole long list of these categories at Category:Fiction by setting; most of them with a works set in... as a subcat. This should probably be a wider discussion on the series. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are all old and should be renamed. Most stuff started out as "in fiction" and this led to people believing (incorrectly) that any mention of a topic ought to be listed there. I do agree that a wider discussion should be had, but that doesn't mean this isn't redundant. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would support removing the "in fiction" category all together as it could be interpreted to mean either topic or setting or simply a passing mention and it is not clear. But this should be done to all of the cats, not just one at a time. Could we modify this discussion to include all of them? Let's just get it done and over with.4meter4 (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my vote to Merge per Zxcvbnm.4meter4 (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Fiction about outer space. per nom. As discussed, "in fiction" categories should be moved to "fiction about" as much as possible, and purged when necessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Whoever does the merge should take care to also sort cats into Category:Works set in outer space when appropriate. Some articles may be included in both, and others only one or the other depending on each situation.4meter4 (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ungulates, again

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 27#Ungulates, again

Category:Contestants on University Challenge

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 27#Category:Contestants on University Challenge

Category:Indian chick lit novels

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:Chick lit novels. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 03:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge as this category doesn't help navigation Mason (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Women's websites

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 27#Category:Women's websites

Category:Japanese historical materials

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Japanese historical materials (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category Mason (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, incoherent content. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Cashew fruit drinks

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 27#Category:Cashew fruit drinks

Category:Plays about observances

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Mason (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support small category with little room for growth. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

X in fiction III

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Conversion from X in fiction to Fiction about X, as this must be a defining trait. This one is a grab bag, focusing on the shallowest subcategories of Category:Fiction by topic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nom. Mason (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I see no actual distinction in meaning between the two titles. Dimadick (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Vietnamese diaspora in fiction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Vietnamese diaspora in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Whatever this topic is intended to hold, it is probably different from the title. Contents are not typical of a fiction-by-topic category, and this should be covered by something in Category:Vietnam in fiction. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it currently only contains a works by creator subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nom. Mason (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Watermills in fiction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Watermills in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Contains only a single article, The Scarecrows, with no obvious merge target. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic of this article either. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nom. Mason (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Chicago Seven in fiction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains only a single subcategory. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Fiction about observances

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Container category with two subcategories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nom. Mason (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Farms in fiction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another Fiction about X category about a type of place where there is a redundant Works set in X subcategory. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nom. Mason (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

X in fiction II

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 except for Category:Human-werewolf romance in fiction. I will add that category to the appropriate nomination. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 21:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Conversion from X in fiction to Fiction about X, as this must be a defining trait. This should cover all the contents in Category:Fiction about creatures. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Dinosaurs in television

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:Dinosaurs in popular culture. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 03:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only contents are 3 format or genre subcategories and a topic (Dinosaur suit) that is not specific to television. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, rename to Category:Television shows about dinosaurs. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nom (and rename if kept) Mason (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Plays set in zoos

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:Fiction about zoos. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 03:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Casinos in fiction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) HouseBlastertalk 03:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Casinos in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only contents are Category:Works set in casinos‎ and four subcategories that are also in that one, so nothing is lost with deletion rather than renaming. It seems that there are many categories with the same issue, possibly due to duplication between "Works set in X" and "Fiction set in X" or similarity with Category:Fiction by topic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

X in fiction I

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 03:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Conversion from X in fiction to Fiction about X, as this must be a defining trait. I believe this covers all of the remaining categories in Category:Fiction about family using the old naming convention. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nom. Mason (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Orphanages in fiction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Works set in orphanages. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 03:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer with a naming convention that is being deprecated. All contents are based on setting. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Pregnancy-themed television shows

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 03:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other fiction-by-topic categories; these are works by topic, not by theme. The addition of "human" is due to Category:Works about human pregnancy. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nom. Mason (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 offspring of incestuous relationships

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 27#Category:Fictional offspring of incestuous relationships

Category:Presbyterian cemeteries in North America

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) HouseBlastertalk 03:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Presbyterian cemeteries in North America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_10#Category:Presbyterian_cemeteries_by_continent. There is only one country here, and it is already in Category:Presbyterian cemeteries by country. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Fair use The Guardian newspaper images

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:Non-free newspaper covers. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 03:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not sure why a category with only one entry is really needed. it seems the content in this category would be better off in Category:Non-free newspaper covers (though "newspapers" don't technically have "covers" per se). In addition, using fair use in the category's name is misleading since "fair use" and non-free content aren't exactly one and the same when it comes to Wikipedia and it's the latter that matters. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy was set up to be more restrictive than fair use; so, it seems better to use the same wording used in the relevant policy to avoid confusion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category is empty. Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Explorers from Saint Petersburg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:Russian explorers and Category:People from Saint Petersburg. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 03:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as an non-defining intersection between occupation and city. No other city has this category as far as I can tell Mason (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:Syfy (British and Irish TV channel)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:Sky Sci-Fi. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 03:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The channel was rebranded as Sky Sci-Fi in 2022. 100.7.34.111 (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per C2D. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:South African male activists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 12:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining intersection. Mason (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we salt this and other similar categories?--User:Namiba 17:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_18&oldid=1192346321"