Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Previous 8 to 21 days

Shortcut
  • WP:CFDOLD

Today's discussions and up to 7 days old

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions

8 to 14 days old

April 24

Category:20th-century Palestinian philosophers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn.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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Rename per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above --Lenticel (talk) 06:59, 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:George Gershwin in film

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Rename per nom. These are not films about George Gershwin. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom --Lenticel (talk) 06:59, 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:Arab-Jewish diaspora

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Propose deleting Category:Arab-Jewish diaspora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Arab-Jewish diaspora in France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Arab-Jewish diaspora in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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

Nominator's rationale: The same rationale as last time: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 28#Category:United States National Recording Registry albums. I still see no reason for this category to be active and it is still redudant to Category:United States National Recording Registry recordings. Even if all the album articles were listed under the United States National Recording Registry albums category, that would just leave songs and other miscellaneous records under the United States National Recording Registry recordings category. It is really a crime to have all the inducted recordings under one category? QuasyBoy (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point Espngeek (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons

Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category. Let'srun (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; standard cat scheme. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Saying something is standard, so we should keep it, is not a compelling reason. Having only one category is not helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Parallelism matters and should be considered a central pillar of Wikipedia. If this cat merged as nominated, then 1943 Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football team is lost from the tree at Category:College football seasons by team. User:Let'srun's notations here are becoming tiresome and obstructive. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the problem, it should also be merged to Category:College football seasons. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Defunct National Association of Professional Base Ball Players teams

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_19#Category:Writers_on_Atheism Mason (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and purge per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above --Lenticel (talk) 07:00, 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:Nazi Germany ministers

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

Category:Provincial Women's Hockey League teams

Nominator's rationale: League was renamed in 2022 Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American people of Zimbabwean descent 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: 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]
  • Meanwhile the nomination is moot. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Propose renaming Category:Ethnic Hungarian politicians outside Hungary to Category:Politicians of Hungarian descent
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]
  • Delete with its subcategory, the article in the subcategory is already in Category:Serbian people of Hungarian descent while the subcategory therein is already in Category:Hungarians in Vojvodina. The article (about a Hungarian parent of a Serb) and the subcategory (about the ethnic Hungarian people in Vojvodina) are entirely unrelated. I will tag the subcategory too. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine with me. I'll tag the category. Mason (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol, you beat me to it 😹😹 Mason (talk) 23:49, 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

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]

Category:Assassinated Iranian Kurdish dissidents

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

Category:Drum Corps Associates corps

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]
  • @Why? I Ask: wouldn't it make more sense to categorize by what they are and always have been, namely Category:All-age drum corps? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They should be in both. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:07, 20 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]


Category:Slavic-American history

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

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

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

Category:Film controversies in Spain

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]

Category:Food gods

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]

  • Even if we keep Category:Food gods then most entries should still be moved from there to Category:Agricultural gods. An alternative is to merge and rename to Category:Agriculture and food gods. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Food and agricultural/ Harvest are two different characteristics. There is many agricultural/harvest deities, who are also related to Grain, thus food. There are other overlaps also. Many agricultural deities are also fertility deities as they make humans and the land fertile. Redtigerxyz Talk 14:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:57, 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]

Category:USA for Africa songs

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

Category:Canadian military personnel from Kelowna

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by location. While a few Canadian cities do have "Military personnel from City" categories (but not "Canadian military personnel from City"), there's no comprehensive scheme in place of doing this across the board for all cities — they otherwise exist only for the major megacities with populations of half a million or more, whose base "People from City" categories were overpopulated into the hundreds or thousands and needed diffusion for size control, and not for every city across the board. But with just 67 articles in Category:Canadian military personnel from British Columbia and just six in Category:People from Kelowna, neither of the parent categories are large enough to need this for diffusability. There's no particularly unique relationship between military service and being from Kelowna per se, so this isn't needed for just three people if other Canadian cities in Kelowna's weight class (Lethbridge, Regina, Saskatoon, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Gatineau, Sherbrooke, Moncton, etc.) don't have the same. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree Kelowna is the third largest locality in BC. Uncontroversial categories exist for the two largest localities (Vancouver and Victoria). It already has three entries which is often considered the criterion for a category, and is likely to gain more in the future as more biographies are created. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the standard minimum size for a category is normally five, not three, and even then size alone doesn't automatically trump other considerations. A category that is failing or violating other rules isn't exempted from those other rules just because you can get its size to five per se.
Secondly, "(Canadian) military personnel" categories don't exist for either Vancouver or Victoria at all yet, so I don't know what you even think you're talking about with that argument.
Thirdly, it's not "ordinal size rank within province" that determines whether such a category is warranted in this tree, but "is the base people-from category large enough to need diffusion or not" — which with just six people in it now and only nine even if these get upmerged to it (well, actually eight, because one of these three people is already in a different occupational subcategory as it is), Kelowna's is not. At present, these categories exist only for big cities where an undifferentiated "People from" category without occupational subcategories would be populated past the 500-article or 1,000-article marks, which is not where Kelowna is sitting, and they do not automatically exist as a matter of course for every small or medium city that had one, two or three military people come from there.
My mistake on thinking there was a category for military personnel from Victoria and Vancouver. It is actually Category:Writers from British Columbia that includes those two cities, and now (since I created it) Kelowna. Which is a good reason to think maybe they should all be in a category, rather than ruling out Kelowna because the other two haven't been created yet.
I could add Trevor Cadieu from Vernon, which is on the same lake as Kelowna and with city limits separated by ~10 km, possibly considered a suburb. Also since this nom, I discovered that George Randolph Pearkes served with the BC Dragoons which is a Kelowna reserve unit (Okanagan Military Museum). I don't want to change the categories of either bio right now in case this is an error and would be perceived as gaming this nom. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found one more notable definitely described as "from Kelowna" by Okanagan Military Museum: Rodney Frederick Leopold Keller. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The smallest other city with a sibling category is both (a) four times Kelowna's size, and (b) about 80 years older than Kelowna, both adding up to the fact it has several hundred more articles in its "People from" tree than Kelowna does, and thus needs to be diffused more than Kelowna's does. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT-related music

Nominator's rationale: An odd entry in Category:LGBT arts, because of the "-related" adjective not shared by any parent category (but shared by some subcategories that may need to be renamed as well). Sister categories at that level (in LGBT arts) are just LGBT dance, LGBT literature, LGBT arts organizations, LGBT theatre, and LGBT art‎. No "-related" anywhere there. Another option would be to rename everything to the form of 'X about Y", although I am not sure if "about LGBT" sounds best (ex. "Music about LGBT"?). For now, removing "-related" from that tree might be easiest in terms of standardization. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I guess it is called "-related" because it also contains LGBT musicians and LGBT musical groups subcategories with artists who do not all create LGBT content. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would note that the category is named the way it is because CFD previously renamed it from the proposed new name to the existing one on the grounds that the music itself doesn't have its own innate sexual orientation, but is merely contextually related to the sexual orientations of people. I would further note things like Category:LGBT-related films, Category:LGBT-related television shows and Category:LGBT-related books, which are also categorized as "LGBT-related", and not just as "LGBT", for the same reason, which means there's a mixture of "LGBT" vs. "LGBT-related" among its siblings rather than this being a one-off outlier. It's a complicated question, for sure, but the reason it's named this way is because of a prior CFD discussion on it, so it's not nearly as clearcut as the nominator makes it out to be. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak keep based on the names of the sibling categories that Bearcat mentions. Mason (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Songs against capitalism

Nominator's rationale: Generally, our songs by topic categories are 'about' not 'against'. Ex. Category:Songs about poverty. This is also subcat to Category:Songs about consumerism, not Category:Songs against consumerism... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean to delete, it is quite a stretch to say that these songs are about capitalism. I found several that are just critical of modern society in general, some others about the labour movement. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps could be saved after pruning, if anyone can indeed show a song about capitalism. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I can understand why one ould argue that should be deleted because of the nebulous nature, but it is pretty clear that many of these songs have lyrics that are anti-capitalist. Velociraptor888 (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is not clear at all. It relies very much on subjective judgement. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)

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 be clearest to have this as Category:Family of José Eduardo dos Santos. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri in literature & education

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]

Category:Burials in Quito

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Propose deleting Category:Burials in Quito (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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

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

Category:Screwball pitchers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Propose deleting Category:Screwball pitchers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • I would be perfectly ok with creating a subCategory:Historians of feminism. Just renaming the nominated category to Category:Historians of feminism is currently not possible however because not all entries of this category would belong there. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 11 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • I have removed Corned beef and Goulash but I will withdraw my support because of the other three articles that have just been added. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 27 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.


April 22

Category:Canadian women translators

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 [1]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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Propose deleting Category:People with major depressive disorder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Fictional characters with major depressive disorder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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.wikipedia.org/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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

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

Category:Child amputees

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

Category:Fictional characters by political orientation

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]
  • Split per nom. Mason (talk) 21:44, 7 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]


Category:Canadian criminal lawyers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]

  • Delete there is no parent category for Category:Criminal lawyers.--User:Namiba 18:28, 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:Non-binary lesbians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Delete both as trivial intersections. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per above. Brandmeistertalk 17:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Do not merge Category:Non-binary lesbians, I'm unsure on the gay people cat but I think non-binary lesbians is a relevant category to have and is not trivial. AlexandraAVX (talk) 08:51, 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

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


Category:Electronic rock musicians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Propose deleting Category:Electronic rock musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • That is a good suggestion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to note that no actual reason or rationale was given for this merge vote. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:07, 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

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

Category:First Nations drawing artists

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

Category:Studies of right-wing politics

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Propose deleting Category:Studies of right-wing politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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:
    • [2]
    • [3]
    • [4]
    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]

  • If not deleted, it should certainly be renamed. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    totally fine with @NLeeuw’s suggestion of renaming to Category:Researchers of right-wing politics
    Should I follow the WP:C2E process?
    ~new here, I can check the process tmo if it’s something else Bluetik (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bluetik: C2E doesn't apply once we have started a discussion on whether the category should exist.
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

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]

Category:Indian Paintbrush (company) films

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

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

Category:Third-person view

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


Category:16th-century Chilean people 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: 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

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

Category:Egypt–Gaza border

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

Category:Combined authority mayoralties

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

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


Category:Rajputana Agency

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

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]

Category:Wikipedians who reject a sexual preference label

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who reject a sexual preference label (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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]
    • Again, this nomination is not about the userboxes but about the category. The category does not consist of users collaborating on a specific topic area, so the userboxes are sufficient. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah. That wasn't entirely clear to me. See below about Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:16, 16 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

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

Category:Politicians of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan

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

Politicians of the Korean Empire

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

Category:Politicians of the Second Polish Republic

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

Native American artists by gender

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

Category:Crafts deities

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]

Category:Redirects from translations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

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

Category:20th-century Latgalian ceramists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Te Haahi Ratana should be merged in Rātana, following talk page discussion, and thereafter we do not need this category any longer. Rātana is already referred to in the header of the remaining Category:New Zealand Rātanas. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: That would be true if they were the only articles in the category. That's no longer the case. There are several articles which were not in the category simply because of its confusing name. Grutness...wha? 04:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see, then a rename would improve it. Rātana movement would probably even be clearer (and the category name following that). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • That would make sense, too, although the main article is at Rātana. Mind you, if there's an article merge in the offing, then a name change at the same time might be possible too. Grutness...wha? 13:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Rātana, or second choice Rātana movement, and keep Category:New Zealand Rātanas but rename to Category:Rātana adherents or Category:Rātana people per WP:SEPARATE. — HTGS (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a bad idea, given that >95% of Rātana adherents would be New Zealanders. Grutness...wha? 03:14, 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.

Punjabi people by occupation

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

Category:Pro-Russian Traitors

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Propose deleting Category:Pro-Russian Traitors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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)"

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Propose manually upmerging articles of Category:Western European culture to Category:Culture of Europe; and purging the subcategories
  • Propose manually upmerging articles of Category:Central European culture to Category:Culture of Europe; and purging the subcategories
  • Propose manually upmerging articles of Category:Northern European culture to Category:Culture of Europe; and purging the subcategories
  • Propose manually upmerging articles of Category:Eastern European culture to Category:Culture of Europe; and purging the subcategories
  • Propose manually upmerging articles of Category:Southern European culture to Category:Culture of Europe; and purging the subcategories
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
  • Western European marriage pattern, a contested hypothesis in demographics that sets the boundary of "Western Europe" in an almost straight line between Venice and Saint Petersburg, crossing through countries that are variously grouped as "Southern, Western, Central, Eastern or Northern Europe" depending on countless definitions other than this one.
  • Heimatschutz Architecture, an early 20th-century style mostly found in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, the latter of which may be grouped as "Western" or "Central European", while Germany may be grouped as "Western" or "Central European" and former East Germany as "Eastern Europe".
  • National liberalism, which the lead section identifies as being especially active in Europe in the 19th century in several national contexts such as Central Europe, the Nordic countries, and Southeastern Europe. Despite being categorised inter alia as Category:Liberalism in Europe, Category:Nationalism in Europe, and Category:Conservatism in Europe, someone thought it should also be more narrowly limited to Category:Central European culture, while it evidently had a much broader reach.
  • Elterngeld, which states that Elterngeld schemes exists in Germany, France, and Scandinavia. Depending on definitions, that's Central, Eastern (former East Germany), Western, Southern (southern France is often considered "Southern Europe") and Northern Europe combined! Yet it is only categorised as Category:Northern European culture.
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]
    • They can probably be diffused (or are already diffused) to other subcategories of Category:Culture of Europe. But let's sort that out after this discussion has been closed. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 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:Letopis

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Propose deleting Category:Letopis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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]
  • Support in principle per nom, but shouldn't it be merged to Category:Chronicles? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because both child cats are already in that tree, and all 5 pages are already in both child cats except the Cetinje chronicle, which is a manuscript containing several chronicles rather than a chronicle in itself. Merging would lead to duplication. NLeeuw (talk) 04:44, 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 independence activists from Pakistan

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

Category:9th-century Indian biographers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

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

Category:Indian independence activists from Punjab, India

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Merge per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 20:43, 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

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

Category:Kids' Lit Quiz winners

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Propose deleting Category:Kids' Lit Quiz winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Propose deleting Category:Japanese Nintedo Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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

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

Category:Pro-Khalistan militant outfits

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

Category:Sikh warriors

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

Category:Sex industry in South Korea

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge per nom Mason (talk) 14:22, 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Propose deleting Category:Will Haven (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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

Category:Sikh military

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

Category:People's peers

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

Category:Biota of Tierra del Fuego

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Propose deleting Category:Biota of Tierra del Fuego (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Propose deleting Category:Southern Cone countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Countries in South America by region (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Speedy rename per WP:C2D. No objections from me. NLeeuw (talk) 13:24, 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Propose deleting Category:1782 in the Maratha Empire
  • Propose deleting Category:1792 in the Maratha Empire
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]
  • Delete per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PadFoot2008 (talk) 10:53, 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:Jewish history by region

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Rename per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 13:24, 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 13:24, 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

Category:Chicago 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 to Category:Original programming by local channels in Chicago. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Chicago television shows to Category:Local television programming in Chicago
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

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

Category:Shabbat observant businesses

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Propose renaming Category:Shabbat observant businesses to Category:Shabbat-observant businesses
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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Split per nom. Alt rename target 2 to Category:Encyclopedias in Bulgarian per the c:Category:Encyclopedias by language naming scheme of Encyclopedias in Fooian. I already proposed Category:Encyclopedias in Dutch. I recommend we follow the recent renaming of Category:Texts by language, Category:Songs by language, and others to this same Things in Fooian naming convention for clarity and consistency. NLeeuw (talk) 00:18, 2 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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
  • Propose renaming Category:Dutch encyclopedias to Category:Encyclopedias in Dutch
  • Propose renaming Category:Belarusian encyclopedias to Category:Encyclopedias in Belarusian
  • Propose renaming Category:Albanian encyclopedias to Category:Encyclopedias in Albanian
  • Propose renaming Category:Bengali encyclopedias to Category:Encyclopedias in Bengali
  • Propose renaming Category:Tamil language encyclopedias to Category:Encyclopedias in Tamil
  • 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

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

Category:18th-century American slave owners

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Propose deleting Category:18th-century American slave owners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:19th-century American slave owners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:18th-century slave owners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by Mason on (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:19th-century slave owners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by Mason on (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Slave owners by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by Mason (talk) 19:51, 4 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]

  • Delete, there is also a Category:Slave owners from the Thirteen Colonies so this century scheme only separate biographies of the very last part of the 18th century versus what we already have separated. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like an argument for deleting the American-specific categories above, but not the ones for slave owners in general. --GCarty (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree to some extent. On the other hand, apart from American slave owners, we just have slave traders who have their own category tree anyway. Modifying to: delete Category:18th-century American slave owners and Category:19th-century American slave owners at the very least. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 11 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Splitting to Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Middle East and Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms in North Africa could be an option indeed. (Note that we do not have a Category:Middle East and North Africa tree.) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Middle East" is a very modern term, coined in the 20th century. "Middle East and North Africa" is even more recent. I don't think it's a good idea. If we are going to rescope by geography rather than perpetrator's religion (which is an improvement), let's stick to continents:
    • Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms in Asia; and
    • Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms in Africa.
    That would work for me. NLeeuw (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Middle East is the modern successor term of Near East which has existed for a long time. Jews have been very prevalent specifically in the Middle East (since ancient times) and in North Africa (since many centuries) so splitting to Middle East and North Africa fits very well with Jewish history. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft support for upmerging. The fact that there is no equivalent Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms by Christians tree is striking; either it will have to be created, or the Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms by Muslims needs to be upmerged. Given that, as far as I can see, there are no article titles identifying the religion of the perpetrators, only identifying the location and or year of the pogrom(s), nom is probably correct. NLeeuw (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtesy ping @Marcocapelle and Smasongarrison: for your consideration. NLeeuw (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with upmerging, for the same reasons as NLeeuw gives Mason (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with consistency and do not oppose the nomination. Alternatively we may create and populate Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms by Christians. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 10 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Propose deleting Category:The Book of Boba Fett episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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

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

Tourism in Brazil by city

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 22:19, 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.

Tourism in Rio Grande do Sul

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.

15 to 21 days old

April 17

Category:Legacy of Austria-Hungary

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
    • I am very sorry but I can't see why someone interested in the Death and funeral of Otto von Habsburg would also be interested in the Landesbank für Bosnien und Herzegowina. It is too far a stretch to bring this together in one category. There is also no article Legacy of Austria-Hungary nor reliable sources about a Legacy of Austria-Hungary that would suggest the abovementioned topics belong together under this umbrella. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:21, 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Propose deleting Category:French people in New Caledonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Propose deleting Category:Inbred animals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Propose deleting Category:Sydney New Year's Eve (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

Category:Christian anti-Zionism

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Propose deleting Category:Christian anti-Zionism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Propose deleting Category:Anti-Zionist Christians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Keep and rename per title of the main article, or merge to Hong Kong–China relations or to Marcocapelle's proposed target above. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Otherwise rename to Anti-Chinese sentiment in Hong Kong per the Indonesian and the Japanese counterparts, or merge to both Hong Kong–China relations and Marcocapelle's proposed target. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge per Marco. Mason (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Queen of Hearts: Where to merge to? 58.152.55.172 (talk) 16:25, 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 due to hippopotamus attacks

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Merge to Category:Deaths due to animal attacks rather than plain deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with merge, not delete. I also think was can do the same for some of the other solo member animal death categories, Deaths due to rhinoceros attacks‎ , Deaths due to cougar attacks‎, meet this criteria as well. Mason (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with merging these siblings too. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge + merge rhino & cougar siblings to Category:Deaths due to animal attacks per Marco & Mason. NLeeuw (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery Could you add rhinos and cougars to the nom if you agree? NLeeuw (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this discussion has been hijacked into something other than what I originally started it as, and hence those should be a different discussion. On the merge versus delete issue, do any of you really think the pharoh Menes is defined by some legend about how he died? That's not how my understanding of defining characteristics works. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconding Pppery here. I don't see what about Menes's article would make his death defining. It's not even clear if it actually happened that way. I think it'd be worth removing Accidental deaths in Egypt and Hunting accident deaths from the article too. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is only one original source about him being killed by an animal, but one source is not uncommon in ancient history. It is a not a reason to not believe it per se. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 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:Orange Twin albums

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Purge and merge per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 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:History of Austria-Hungary by topic

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

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

Category:Indian massacres

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

Category:Intersex transgender people

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

Category:Volodimerovichi family

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

Infrastructure

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Propose renaming Category:16th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Portuguese Macau to Category:16th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Macau
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.[5] 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]
  • Huh? 58.152.55.172 (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you at least make your attempt to sockpuppet less obvious? Mason (talk) 22:08, 3 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]
  • For sure, bishops are bishops of a diocese in the first place. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. Seems like a good solution to me. Mason (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Qwerfjkl: That will exclude articles such as Melchior Carneiro, Antonio do Rosário, Diogo Correia Valente, Ignacio da Silva and Cândido Gonçalves Franco. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 16:23, 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.

Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award

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

Category:Recipients of Indian civil awards and decorations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Propose deleting Category:Temples (LDS Church) in Latin America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Propose deleting Category:Jewish nobility (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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

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

Category:Lists of ambassadors to Northern Cyprus

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Propose deleting Category:Lists of ambassadors to Northern Cyprus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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]
  • Delete per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:31, 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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Propose deleting Category:Public high schools in Chicago suburbs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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

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

Category:Songs against capitalism

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

Category:Songs against racism and xenophobia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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)

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

Category:.io video games

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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]
  • Delete non-defining descriptor. - Altenmann >talk 16:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep please read Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 March 29#Template:.io games to see related arguments. Cheers! Johnson524 03:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better write an article about it, with proper sourcing, as mentioned in the other discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per my reasoning from the TFD that sources ([6] [7] [8]) consider ".io games" a genre, but unlike my conclusion in the TFD, keep the category as genre is CATDEF. ~ A412 talk! 16:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lean delete. This doesn't seem defining. Mason (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Valid game genre per above sources, plus [9], [10] --Mika1h (talk) 23:36, 3 April 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

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


April 15

Category:Feminist historians

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Feminist historians

Category:Trademark attorneys

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) Toadette (Let's talk together!) 22:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Do we really need to make the distinction for what kind of intellectual property law they practice? (With the exception for patent attorneys). Mason (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, the articles say they are specializing in intellectual property, broadly. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 15 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 criminal lawyers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 22#Category:Canadian criminal lawyers

Category:Non-binary lesbians

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 22#Category:Non-binary lesbians

Category:San Quentin State Prison inmates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:Inmates of San Quentin State Prison. (non-admin closure) Toadette (Let's talk together!) 22:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the naming convention for prison inmates. See Category:Inmates of Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary, Category:Inmates of ADX Florence, Category:Inmates of Sing Sing, Category:Inmates of the Marshalsea, Category:Inmates of Sighet prison, Category:Inmates of Pitești prison, etc. The only time the convention is "Category:X inmates" is where X is a ghetto, e.g. Category:Łódź Ghetto inmates. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator's rationale jengod (talk) 23:29, 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:Fictional characters by political orientation

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 22#Category:Fictional characters by political orientation

Category:Pourashavas of Bangladesh

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Pourashavas of Bangladesh

Category:Students of Ziaur Rahman Azmi

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:Sunni Muslim scholars of Islam. (non-admin closure) Toadette (Let's talk together!) 22:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category, fails WP:OCASSOC --woodensuperman 13:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, and "students" categories are used for people who are only notable as a student. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nom and marco. Mason (talk) 03:34, 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:Ziaur Rahman Azmi

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Bengal editor's (duplicate) !vote has been disregarded because they are a sock. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEPON: Individual works by a person should not be included in an eponymous category but should instead be in a sub-category such as Category:Novels by Agatha Christie. --woodensuperman 07:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, there can be another category naming that such as Category:Hussain Ahmad Madani and Category:Books by Hussain Ahmad Madani. Bengali editor (talk) 09:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference there is that Category:Hussain Ahmad Madani contains other articles which aren't books, thus warranting an WP:EPONCAT, this one doesn't. --woodensuperman 09:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Bengali editor has created Category:Books by Ziaur Rahman Azmi, so Category:Ziaur Rahman Azmi can now be deleted. --woodensuperman 09:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree I added another category on the category Category:Students of Ziaur Rahman Azmi. Please include Zakir Naik also in this category because I am a new editor and the page Zakir Naik[1] is for extended confirmed. Bengali editor (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, standard case of WP:OCEPON considering that the students category will not be kept either (see nomination above). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://alhidaayah.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Transcript-IDTP-5.pdf
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Jewish billionaires

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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... 00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:American Jewish billionaires (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I haven't done much editing in categorization recently, so maybe the rules have changed, but this one sure reeks of a WP:OCEGRS problem to me. At the very least, there ought to be community consensus (rather than the actions of a single editor) that this intersection is sufficiently noteworthy and unbiased to merit inclusion; I do not believe it is, certainly not without context. Chubbles (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEGRS. There is no Category:American Christian billionaires, Category:American atheist billionaires, Category:American Muslim billionaires, Category:American Hindu billionaires, Category:American White billionaires, Category:American Black billionaires, Category:American Asian billionaires, Category:American Hispanic billionaires, etc. either. This does seem like framing Jews as exceptionally rich, which is a common anti-Semitic stereotype. As long as similar categories do not exist, reasons for having and keeping this one alone are rather doubtful. NLeeuw (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Side note - there is a Category:African-American billionaires, and I will leave it to the community to decide if this, too, ought to be nominated. Chubbles (talk) 05:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point. It could be a follow-up, but at least its parent Category:African-American upper class has a main article: African-American upper class. That might be sufficient to establish its notability. NLeeuw (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chubbles permission to add Category:American Asian billionaires to the nomination? The same user has just created this a few hours ago as an empty category. NLeeuw (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tagged this empty category for CSD C1 speedy deletion today. Liz Read! Talk! 02:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because Jews. It is an WP:OCEGRS category premised on an antisemitic stereotype. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per nom and EGRS. (For the record, I think that African American billionaires probably hold-ups to EGRS, but that's because of the very recent history of us economics, https://www.ncrc.org/the-racial-wealth-divide-and-black-billionaires-across-the-globe/) But for Jewish billionaires that seems to me playing much more into negative stereotypes rather than economic gains/academic interest) Mason (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • C'on! Really?! On what basis? This is simply a category, what would you do if I created an article? How is that anti-Semitic stereotyping? If so, why don't you just delete all reference to people's religions in their respective articles?! Being successful is not a crime. To address the nominator's points, as they mentioned above, there exists an Category:African-American billionaires, I have also created Category:Asian American billionaires, Category:Arab American billionaires. I emptied Category:American Asian billionaires since I thought Category:Asian American billionaires is more correct linguistically and more in line with the reference to that group. I will also create a category for American Hispanic billionaires. Furthermore, what prevents anyone here from creating a category for all other groups (Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.) if that's your argument for not allowing this category? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also just created Category: American Italian billionaires, which somehow weirdly created another Category:Italian American billionaires category. One of them can be deleted. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • All these should be merged too. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEGRS. Congrats to all the billionaires of any nationality or ethnicity on your money, please pay your tax bills in full. jengod (talk) 21:53, 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:Neo-Latin writers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 22#Category:Neo-Latin writers

Category:Yemeni scientists by century

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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... 00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There is only one century in here, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 04:18, 15 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 arrested in Yemen

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:Prisoners and detainees of Yemen. (non-admin closure) Toadette (Let's talk together!) 22:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection of occupation and location of arrest. Mason (talk) 04:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, we shouldn't have "arrested" categories anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and Marco. NLeeuw (talk) 17:42, 15 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:Marching

Nominator's rationale: Purge or reparent. Are pride parades part of military traditions? There's already Category:Military marching and Category:Military marches. --MikutoH talk! 02:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Electronic rock musicians

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 22#Category:Electronic rock musicians

Category:Aphex Twin songs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 NL's proposal. Namely, rename Category:Aphex Twin songs to Category:Compositions by Aphex Twin, and re-parent to Category:Compositions by composer. Then merge Category:Songs written by Aphex Twin to the newly-renamed Category:Compositions by Aphex Twin. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Aphex Twin songs to Category:Aphex Twin tracks
Nominator's rationale: (Or maybe "Aphex Twin compositions".) Strictly speaking, songs contain singing. Aphex Twin tracks have no singing, or no singing in the traditional sense. For example, it is not really accurate to describe Avril 14, a piano instrumental, as a "song". Popcornfud (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean oppose. Don't other categories have non-singing songs in them? I don't think it's helpful for navigation to make the distinction between songs that contain vocal tracks and those that do not. Mason (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarity, I'm not proposing we create separate tracks for vocal and instrumental Aphex Twin tracks, just keeping a single category and renaming it. (There are very few, if any, Aphex Twins that could really be called "songs" in my view, and I also suspect the habit of calling non-vocal tracks "songs" tends to be an Americanism, but that's probably by the by.) Popcornfud (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Category:Aphex Twin compositions would well fit as a subcategory of Category:Compositions by composer. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would work for me. Mason (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would that not also be redundant to Category:Songs written by Aphex Twin? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

& merge Category:Songs written by Aphex Twin to Category:Compositions by Aphex Twin per Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. Category:Songs written by Aphex Twin was created 15 January 2016‎; Category:Aphex Twin songs was created 21 October 2007‎, is therefore older, and therefore should be the merge target. This seems to be a comprehensive solution to all issues observed above. NLeeuw (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on NL's proposal would be very much appreciated!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Love it! Mason (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should I ping the other participants to ask their opinion? They might not have read this, but I don't want to unnecessarily alert people. NLeeuw (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This final solution is surely in line with my earlier comments. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle Don't you mean 'certainly'? I often see you use the word 'surely' where I expect the word 'certainly'. As far as I know, in English, 'surely' is usually used in a question sentence to someone else, asking them to confirm something you would expect / like them to believe, or to say, or to do / to have done. 'Surely you locked the door, didn't you?' It's like the English equivalent of '...toch zeker wel...?' See the usage notes at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surely because [surely] connotes strong affirmation, it is used when the speaker or writer expects to be agreed with. Unlike sure it may be used neutrally—the reader or hearer may or may not agree, and it is often used when the writer is trying to persuade.
    • Surely you must admit that it was a good decision.
    In this case, it's like you're asking yourself whether you agree with your own earlier comments. 'Deze oplossing is toch zeker wel in lijn met mijn eerdere opmerkingen?' There is nobody who can answer that question except for you. NLeeuw (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then my "surely" should be read as "certainly". Happy to improve my English vocabulary. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're welcome! NLeeuw (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: ....and I forgot to tag Category:Songs written by Aphex Twin last week. Oops. If there are no further comments by next week, we should be all set for implementing NL's proposal. Apologies for the delay/third relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no worries HouseBlaster. :) NLeeuw (talk) 17:47, 15 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 14

Category:Category:Overseas Chinese Presidents

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Overseas Chinese Presidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I think this means 'Politicians of Chinese descent who became President of a country', which seems like too narrow a category. GiantSnowman 15:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this category into Category:Politicians of Chinese descent instead. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:58, 14 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.
  • Rename Heads of state of Chinese descent (or Heads of state and heads of government of Chinese descent). 58.152.55.172 (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:12th-century French novelists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. The 12th-century novelists category is too small for diffusion by nationality (a.k.a. there's 2 people in the entire tree). Mason (talk) 23:28, 14 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:Independant Native American countries

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 22:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Independant Native American countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Or plausibly, just a rename to correct the spelling error. Redundant at best with other categories, the notion of a "country" as we understand it seems dangerously nebulous and unattested in several member articles here. Remsense诉 22:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; Native Americans did not have nation states per se, at least not according to the sources I've read. Dubious. 162 etc. (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly rename to Category:Independent Native American confederacies but I am not opposing deletion either. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 15 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:Visual artists in late 20th-century Australia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 both to Category:20th-century Australian artists. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Can we make these categories more defining? I really don't know what to do with them. Perhaps split by art movement? Mason (talk) 19:50, 14 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:Food gods

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Food gods

Category:Canadian mIlitary personnel by city

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 renamed as a straightforward spelling error that didn't require debate. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is a typo in the category name, there should not be a capital I inside "military". ☆ Bri (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per WP:C2A, this could have been listed at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per WP:C2A. NLeeuw (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not necessary to take a straightforward spelling error like this to CFD for seven full days of discussion, and this could have been handled as a speedy. Dirty deed already done, dirt cheap. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 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:Film controversies in Spain

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Film controversies in Spain

Category:Dutch cookies

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Dutch cookies

Category:Rajputana Agency

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Rajputana Agency

Category:Mohave tribe

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Mohave tribe

Category:Languages with Linglist code

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Languages with Linglist code

Category:Beauty goddesses

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) Toadette (Let's talk together!) 21:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Vague categorization based on "associated with". PepperBeast (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why single this one category out from the very large Category:Goddesses by association? Makes no sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Every single category about "deities of x", covers associations. Dimadick (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The category may need some cleaning up, but the association is fairly common in every pantheon. Invokingvajras (talk) 3:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

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 Goddesses like Lakshmi are linked with Beauty.--Redtigerxyz Talk 05:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a rare instance in which association may be WP:DEFINING, as deities are defined by what humans believe about them. As examining what or how deities really are, or if they even exist, is beyond human capacity, human beliefs about what they are, and associations about what they do, need to be central in how we categorise them, as long as associations are not WP:UNDUE. NLeeuw (talk) 14:50, 14 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

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Tigers in Meitei culture


April 13

Category:NFL marching bands

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 17:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2C. Trivialist (talk) 23:13, 13 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:Sovietism

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 17:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Sovietism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: As category statute itself states, "Articles relating to Sovietisms, the neologisms and cliches in the Russian language of the epoch of the Soviet Union." But this is perfectly covered by Category:Soviet phraseology, for the first. For the second, someone included into it the categories Neo-Sovietism‎ (3 C, 32 P) Stalinism‎ (16 C, 112 P)
whicxh have nothing to do with " neologisms and cliches in the Russian language". - Altenmann >talk 22:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, or possibly convert to a soft redirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 14 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

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 22#Category:Intersex lesbians

Category:Indian Paintbrush (company) films

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 22#Category:Indian Paintbrush (company) films

Category:Rocky (film series)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 17:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D per Rocky (franchise). Charles Essie (talk) 21:13, 13 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:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in New Caledonia

Nominator's rationale: Broaden this category to include 19th-century churches of all denominations. There are only two pages in here, and 4 total in the entire Roman Catholic churches in New Caledonia Mason (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:19th century in New Caledonia. Even this category is so small that Category:19th-century churches in New Caledonia is certainly not viable. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for categorising under the dependent territory and the continent category trees. (Otherwise combine with the counterparts for other territoires d'outre-mer, collectivités d'outre-mer, pays d'outre-mer and collectivités sui generis.) 61.244.93.97 (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the rename and the merge proposal are keeping the content in the tree of the the dependent territory, so this is not a reason to oppose. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case either keep as it is, or, less preferably, keep a big tent category for Roman Catholic churches of all collectivités d'outre-mer along with the sole pays d'outre-mer and the collectivité sui generis. 61.244.93.97 (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I countered your argument in my previous reply. Then it does not make sense to repeat your "keep" without any new argument. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI to the closer this IP is probably WP:LTA/HKGW Mason (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 01:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Marcocapelle you didn't have a single word on the big-tent proposal on a category for all collectivités d'outre-mer, the pays d'outre-mer and the collectivité sui generis. What's your take? (...are keeping the content in the tree of the the dependent territory... And no I don't mean generally the tree under Category:Dependent territories but Category:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings by dependent territory specifically.) 61.244.93.97 (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Marcocapelle, @Mason, any compromise here? — Qwerfjkltalk 17:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films set in the Rajput Empire

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 17:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, the category contains films set in various Rajput kingdoms, e.g. the kingdom of Mewar. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 19:50, 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:Scholars of Greek language

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 22#Category:Scholars of Greek language


Category:Arab gangs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 17:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, these are Lebanese mafia gangs. Arab is inaccurate, since many Lebanese people do not identify as Arab. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, because I think this category should be kept so that Category:Arab gangs can be merged into it. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? You want Category:Arab gangs to merged into itself? NLeeuw (talk) 07:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • support that the name is bad, but caveat: it should not only be renamed, but recategorized as well, because "Gangs" and "mafia" are different category trees. - Altenmann >talk 22:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per WP:C2D. Main article is Lebanese mafia. NLeeuw (talk) 19:48, 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:Companies that operate fighter jets

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:Fighter aircraft operators. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Companies that operate fighter jets to Category:Companies that operate fighter aircraft
Nominator's rationale: Not sure whether this is an appropriate category, but if so it should align with Category:Fighter aircraft. – Fayenatic London 11:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's okay to standardize this on "aircraft" instead of "jets". I'm unaware of any companies that currently operate fighters with propellers at a similar scale. Edward Sandstig (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:40, 13 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:Studies of right-wing politics

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 22#Category:Studies of right-wing politics

Category:Paleontology portal

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Category:Paleontology portal. Merge Category:Paleontology portals to Category:Biology portals and Category:History portals. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These seem to effectively be a duplicate category. I'm bringing the category here in case I'm missing something obvious Mason (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is the category for the pages used by Portal:Paleontology. Category:Paleontology portals is a hierarchical category for categorizing various paleontological portals, such as Portal:Dinosaurs. If we are to organize pages by category instead of using PREFIXINDEX to look up supages, then the category is useful. Now, the proposed merge target only has two entries, so it might instead be upmerged into something else.-- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Paleontology portals to Category:Biology portals and/or to Category:History portals, redundant category layer with only two portals. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: any merger would remove Paleontology portals (plural). We should keep the nominated Paleontology portal (singular) to hold the subpages within one portal, because Biology portals (plural) and History portals do not do this job: instead, they serve a different maintenance purpose of holding the portals within one subject area. Certes (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a very good point, I will tag Paleontology portals too. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but consider merging the plural form instead, as discussed above. Certes (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge target for the plural category?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:36, 13 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:Rajput era

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 17:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Rajput era (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic of the articles in the category. In fact the category is quite a hodgepodge of unrelated articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:13, 13 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:Volvo Open Cup

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Volvo Open Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful category, as it contains only one article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It contains two pages now. If not kept, it should be merged to the relevant parent categories, rather than deleted. Mason (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to all parent categories per above. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 14 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:Women's firsts

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. If OP wishes to pursue this nomination further, they are welcome to renominate while tagging all of the categories (User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/massCFD can help with that) and presenting a substantive reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created by a user who was indefinitely blocked for disruptive behavior. Векочел (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close. The nominator makes no valid argument for deletion. The editor in question was not evading a ban at the time their account was created; the fact that they were deemed disruptive seven months after they created the category is wholly irrelevant. ——Serial Number 54129 17:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Comment. most of these nominations are not tagged. Further, I don't think this is a good reason to nominate a category. These categories seem defining to me as many first female FOO are described as such in the lead. If not kept, the categories should be merged to the relevant women/female occupation categories. Mason (talk) 21:08, 13 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

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 22#Category:First Nations drawing artists

Category:1950s in Ajmer

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 17:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, Ajmer State only existed for six years, so there is no need for diffusion by century or decade. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Mason (talk) 21:10, 13 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:Districts of India by name

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:Wikipedia categories named after districts of India and make hidden. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Districts of India by name (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: delete, "by name" is not diffusing anything. In theory the category should be merged to Category:Districts of India but the content is already in that target's subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, it is not clear to me what purpose this has, but let's then just apply this existing convention. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:22, 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.

17th and 18th century in the Mughal Empire

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 22#17th and 18th century in the Mughal Empire

Category:German pies

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 17:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:German pies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There is no concept of "pie" in Germany other than as something imported from Britain or the US, compare de:Pie. Calling these particular German Kuchen "pies" is WP:SYNTH original research. See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Germany#Zwetschgenkuchen. —Kusma (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a corresponding template, compare Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_13#Template:German_pies. —Kusma (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the three articles are already in Category:German cakes which is a better place for them. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; agree with Kusma that the concept of pie (as a separate category of food from cake) seems to have no meaning in German cuisine. Valereee (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Marco and Valereee. NLeeuw (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed, there is no such thing as pies in German cuisine, and all three of the entries listed here are cakes, not pies. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:19, 14 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:Battles involving the Pratihara Empire

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:Wars involving the Pratihara Empire and Category:Battles involving the Indian kingdoms. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge for now, currently just one article in the category, without objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual upmerge for now without prejudice per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 03:18, 14 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:1940s jazz album stubs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 the categories but Keep the templates. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:1940s jazz album stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:1940s-jazz-album-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:2020s jazz album stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:2020s-jazz-album-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The templates, {{1940s-jazz-album-stub}} and {{2020s-jazz-album-stub}}, were created a year ago without being proposed at WP:WSS/P. With very few articles to populate the categories, I notified the creator and upmerged the templates, negating the need for these two categories. The categories were recently recreated (without any proposal) but still only contain 2 and 5 articles. The templates should either be upmerged again or outright deleted due to the low number of candidates, but there is no need yet for the categories. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 07:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep templates as part of a series in Category:Jazz album stubs, but merge categories to parents as too small. https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=28010202 finds only 15 stub articles for 2020s jazz albums. https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=28010212 finds only 8 for 1940s. – Fayenatic London 09:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amend templates so that they upmerge; Delete categories as being insufficiently populated to satisfy WP:WSS. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:47, 14 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:Battles involving Bengal

Nominator's rationale: merge, battles are diffused by (former) countries and Bengal was not a country. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Battles involving Bangladesh, The battles in the category are involved Bengal region and Bangladesh is created from the a big part of the region. It would be better to rename the category and make specify it for country-wise battle category. Mehedi Abedin 09:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that would be highly anachronistic, and some of these battles were in West Bengal. – Fayenatic London 09:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Military history of Bengal. IMHO this is a useful division of Category:History of Bengal. – Fayenatic London 09:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok that is a reasonable alternative, but then still the content should be added to Category:Battles involving the Indian kingdoms too. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: it should only be a selective merge to that parent, because many of the articles are already in other subcats of that one, and I'm not sure whether the others belong there. I suggest you watch the category and merge any valid missing items yourself if the rename goes through. – Fayenatic London 15:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Warsaw Veterinary Institute alumni

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 17:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Warsaw Veterinary Institute alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Do we really need such a deep category tree for a single alumnus? Neither of the institutions have wikipedia pages Don State Agrarian University, Warsaw Veterinary Institute. Mason (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (rather than upmerge) per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:37, 13 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 Sports Academy

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 17:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:United States Sports Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Central Penn College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: These categories only have the eponymous article in it and the logo of the college. In theory, upmerge for now, but in reality, delete because the page is already categorized. Mason (talk) 04:13, 13 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 12

Native American artists by gender

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Native American artists by gender

Category:United Center

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 18:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:United Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON. Tagged by Namiba on February 4 but not listed. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:21, 12 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:Serer presidents

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 20:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think we should be diffusing at the intersection of ethnicity and specific political office. Also as a follow up to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_30#Category:Serer_jurists Mason (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Senegal has had 5 presidents since independence. 3 of those 5 were Serers as the cat clearly shows. The 4th had a Serer mother and a Serer wife. And we have not even accounted for Gambia and Mauritania where the Serer people are also found. I think this cat is pretty useful to the general reader and has great potential. There is no policy that I know of that states we can't do that. If that's the case, then there is no point in having cats for ethnicities and nationalities e.g. English actors, Scottish actors, etc.... Tamsier (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But how does it meet the criteria for defining intersection, under WP:EGRS/IThat's the policy that this category doesn't meet the keep criteria for. Your arguments don't address the lack of defining intersection. Comparing this category to English actors is not comparable. We don't have English presidents, but we do have English politicians. Mason (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cat:Serer presidents is implemented in order to split cat:Serer people - which is permitted by OCEGRS. It helps us split notable Serers into their profession rather than lumping them all into the Cat:Serer people. To do that, would overload Cat:Serer people and would not help the reader at all. In fact, most notable Serers have not been added to this Cat for exactly that reason. The cat:Serer people should only contain Serer people, Saafi people, Niominka people, Serer-Laalaa, Ndut people, Palor people, etc., in the main Cat, and then sub cats for Serer people based on their profession. In my view, this would be more useful and helpful to the reader. Tamsier (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But it isn't helping diffuse Serer people. It's a subcategory of Serer politicians. Mason (talk) 21:22, 13 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:Categories needing manual work before deletion

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 20:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: not all categories here will be deleted; some are just being purged. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:35, 12 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:Serer cardinals

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 20:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one cardinal that meets this criteria, which is unhelpful for navigation. If not merged, I think we should broaden the category to clergy or religious workers. Mason (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: In Senegal and Gambia, but especially Senegal were the Serer are the third largest ethnic group, this community constitute the majority of the Christian community. I get your argument, but I truly believe this category is extremely helpful, and would provide even greater help to the reader in the future. There are more people that could potentially be added to this cat. I therefore urge the community to give it time and keep it as is.Tamsier (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What other cardinals can be added? It's been 10 years since the category was created. I feel like that's more than enough time. And if sufficiently more people exist, those categories can be created again. Relevant: CFD that ended with deletion. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 30#Category:Serer jurists Mason (talk) 21:08, 12 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:Egyptian Football League clubs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 18:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match parent article and category, Egyptian Premier League. Ben5218 (talk) 18:25, 12 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:Original programming

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:Television shows. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category. Although we do use the "original programming" wording in for "television programs by network" categories, that's only because we want television programs to be categorized only for the service they were actually original to, and not for services that picked up rebroadcast rights -- for instance, a show that is original to NBC in the United States would be catted as NBC original programming, but would not get categorized for its rebroadcast by CTV in Canada, ITV in the UK or Seven in Australia.
But literally by definition, every television program is "original" to some television service or other -- a television program can't exist at all without being "original" to some television channel, network or streaming platform -- which just makes this functionally indistinguishable from Category:Television programming. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose straight deletion; the sub-cats by streaming service or network/channel should be parented together somewhere. Maybe merge and redirect to Category:Television shows. – Fayenatic London 21:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Fayenatic london. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:46, 13 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:2023 farm sims

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 16:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by intersection of unrelated characteristics. Category:Farming video games does not have any scheme of subcategorizing its contents by individual year of release, and the Category:Video games by year tree doesn't have any established scheme of subcategorizing games for the intersection of genre with year of release either -- so this is the only category of this type that exists at all, but special treatment isn't necessary for just four games.
All four games have been left in the 2023 video games parent alongside this, so no upmerging is necessary in that direction. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Having a dedicated category for this specific year isn't necessary, given that games released from other years are all located at Category:Farming video games. Ben5218 (talk) 18:40, 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:Wikipedia community campaigns

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:Wikimedia community projects. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia community campaigns to Category:Wikimedia community project
Nominator's rationale: I recently made this category and it does not have broad use. The better name is "Wikimedia community project" because Wikimedia community project (Q56248902) already has some use in Wikidata, and it is the same concept. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle and HouseBlaster: The plural is correct and singular is an error. Yes I support. Bluerasberry (talk) 07:49, 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:Politicians of the Second Polish Republic

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Politicians of the Second Polish Republic

Politicians of the Korean Empire

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Politicians of the Korean Empire

Category:Politicians of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) Qwerfjkltalk 20:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Politicians of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies to selected parents
Nominator's rationale: Manual merge to parents as appropriate. E.g. although the lede for Ferdinando Petruccelli della Gattina says he was a politician, he seems rather to have been a journalist. If not merged, then rename to Category:Politicians from the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies using "from" as above. – Fayenatic London 15:26, 12 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 Democratic Republic of Afghanistan

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Politicians of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan

Category:Hosts of the CCTV New Year's Gala

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 16:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Hosts of the CCTV New Year's Gala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT --woodensuperman 11:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious application of the guideline. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:06, 12 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:Sesame Street crew

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 16:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Sesame Street crew (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Cast and crew fail WP:PERFCAT. --woodensuperman 09:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious application of the guideline. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:08, 12 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

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Muppet performers

Category:Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic developers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 16:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic developers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Categorising by specific production follows the same logic as WP:PERFCAT. Category:Video game developers is sufficient. --woodensuperman 09:42, 12 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:Fallout (series) developers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 16:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Fallout (series) developers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Categorising by specific production follows the same logic as WP:PERFCAT. Category:Video game developers is sufficient. --woodensuperman 09:41, 12 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:Children of Humayun Ahmed

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 16:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NOTINHERITED. Nearly all the other entries in Category:Children by person are historical/dynastic. --woodensuperman 07:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, while I am not sure how WP:NOTINHERITED would apply here, it is not worth keeping this category with only two entries, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that if notability is not inherited, then categorisation in this manner is not defining. --woodensuperman 17:09, 12 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.

Lighthouses

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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... 00:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated year categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination would surreptitiously empty "transport infrastructure" year categories (see Category:Transport infrastructure by year of completion). If a nomination would empty a differently-named layer, then it would be good practice to tag and list those categories. In this case, however, since Lighthouses are part of the Transport infrastructure hierarchy, merge but use "transport infrastructure" year categories as the second target in each case, rather than "infrastructure". – Fayenatic London 09:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination adapted accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 14 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:Mayor and cabinet executives

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 16:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, the category does not contain articles about mayors but instead articles about local authorities. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the new name would certainly help reflect the existing content. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:05, 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:Wikipedians who reject a sexual preference label

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Wikipedians who reject a sexual preference label

Category:Fraggle Rock albums

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 18:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains one article, this is the only category that it makes sense to merge to. (Oinkers42) (talk) 02:57, 12 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:Children of princesses regnant

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:Princesses regnant. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Aside from sons and daughters, I think no other subcategories are expected any time soon. That makes this a redundant layer to be dual-upmerged for now without prejudice. NLeeuw (talk) 01:13, 12 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 politicians who are the sole member of their party in statewide office

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Before I get to the analysis of how I reached a "delete" outcome, I want to say that this is one of the nastiest discussions I have seen in a while. Comments about editors (to arbitrarily pick one example, Editors insisting that this category is completely arbitrary is eyeroll-worthy) can easily be rephrased without attacking other editors (such as The idea that this category is completely arbitrary is eyeroll-worthy; this is not to say that is a particularly strong argument, but it is certainly stronger than attacking good-faith contributors).

Numerically this is a wash, with five editors supporting deletion to three editors wishing to keep the category. While discussions on Wikipedia are not votes, the head count is not completely irrelevant either. However, as was pointed out, some very blatant canvassing has taken place (1, 2, 3, 4). Discarding BottleOfChocolateMilk's !vote, which was directly canvased at their talk page, we have five editors who support deletion to two editors who support keeping the category.

To overcome such numbers, the arguments in favor of keeping the category must be fairly strong. Supporters of keeping the category pointed to reliable sources which used "only statewide elected elected official of a given party" as descriptor of given politicians. People supporting deletion countered by saying they are trivial, arbitrary characteristics. Neither argument is particularly stronger than the other, so as closer it would be supervoting to close as keep in the face of more than 2:1 opposition.

As always, I welcome questions/comments/concerns about this close (or anything I have done in general!) at my talk page. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Propose deleting Category:American politicians who are the sole member of their party in statewide office (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Overcategorization as non-defining, trivial, narrow, possibly others. This category is also temporary. If a Republican wins in Maine's 2nd congressional district this fall, then Susan Collins no longer qualifies. If Mary Peltola or Jon Tester lose reelection, they no longer qualify. Joe Manchin isn't running for reelection, so he comes out when his term expires. Also, as noted in the category, this can be incomplete or inaccurate as state supreme court justices are not always partisan, but they may be members of parties. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. One might just as well create a Category:American politicians who like eating chips, live on the 3rd floor and are named Kyle. NLeeuw (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pretty much every complaint listed here is arbitrary, subjective and baseless. This is a key measure of partisanship and political party strength. It is relevant to understanding the electoral geography of the United States. Yes, circumstances will change with the occurrence of elections and require the page to be updated. That can be done easily and promptly. You have apparently invented your own rule requiring categories to be permanently included on pages. There are plenty of categories which require people to be "current" in holding a position. (Although your Maine example is obviously mistaken, considering the fact that the congressional district is not a statewide office, the Alaska and WV examples are true, but not a valid reason for deletion). The potato chip analogy is intellectually insulting - you are arguing that this key measure of partisanship in states is as relevant as someone's snack food preferences? With all due respect, that is ridiculous. The supreme court justice caveat is merely an acknowledgement that the affiliation of some offices cannot be reliably or consistently sourced. Warning editors against making baseless assumptions does not mean that the category is invalid. 1Matt20 (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just wanted to add Category:Current elections as one of many examples proving that there is no prohibition whatsoever on so-called "temporary" categories. Also, look at the tables on each of the pages included in Category:Political party strength in the United States by state. How is that strength measured? By color coding, letting the reader know when members of political parties last held statewide office or legislative control. This category isolates that information, leading the reader from a page about an individual politician to broader knowledge of ideological trends and electoral geography. 1Matt20 (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Category:Current elections is a maintenance category populated by {{Current election}}. Category:Political party strength in the United States by state is a category of pages on political party strength, and while that strength changes, the pages in the category won't. Legit point on my error on Susan Collins. A Republican governor or senator elected in Maine would remove her from this category, though. That makes this non-defining for the politicians in the category for sure, as well as possibly other forms of overcategorization as listed on that page. So there's nothing "arbitrary, subjective, or baseless" about my nom. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You have restated your personal belief that having to eventually remove a page from a category makes it non-defining. You are unable to actually point me to a categorization rule which requires every category to be binding forever. Wikipedia is edited responsively to reflect current events, and I can assure you I will keep this category updated to the occurrence of elections. You are unable to respond to my rebuttal that the supreme court justice caveat merely asks editors to not make unsourced assumptions based on the party of governors who appointed justices. Finally, before I created this category, other editors had already noted the politicians included as the sole remaining officeholders of their parties (quite prominently, on the intros of bio pages). Because that will change one day, must it be considered utterly irrelevant information on Wikipedia? 1Matt20 (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Delete per nom. I think it is an arbcat and it isn't a defining characteristic for the people in the category. This seems arbitrary. Why not two office holders? Why not zero? Mason (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am having a very difficult time wrapping my head around this mentality. If there is only one statewide officeholder from a political party, it is an clear sign of ideological domination and resource disparity. How on earth is that a meaningless consideration? Saying "Why not zero?" is pure sophistry. 1Matt20 (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd like to delve specifically into what WP:ARBITRARYCAT uses as examples: Top 7% test scores, 100th episodes. These are indeed random markers - they don't tell you anything. If there is only one member of a political party left in statewide office, that is plainly informative about the state's partisan lean. It is notable because it is the most glaring signal possible of an officeholder's resistance to trends - they are unusually popular, their views don't reflect their party's typical base, etc. Hence why a person's status as final statewide officeholder is frequently cited in Wikipedia biographies as well as in the media. 1Matt20 (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you have examples of person's status as final statewide officeholder being used as defining characteristic of the person? Because I really don't see how this is defining for the person. I think it's defining for the office or the party, but not the person. Mason (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You are conjuring mutual exclusivity out of thin air. It is defining for the party, the office, and especially for the person - the individual whose name is actually on the ballot, whose unique public identity allows them to be the only statewide official from their party, resisting headwinds of power balance in their state.
      I could go on and on with examples: Joe Manchin criticizes his party's incumbent president at an unusual rate and openly flirted with third-party registration. Mary Peltola votes against her party 12% of the time, the fourth highest of her colleagues, compared with just 6% defection rate by the average House Democrat. Susan Collins was the only Republican senator to vote against confirming Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Although he is a Democrat, Brian Gaines was appointed Comptroller of South Carolina by a Republican in order to move the office on from a corruption scandal. Are you noticing a pattern yet? If you're the only statewide representative of your party left, you are incentivized to be a "maverick."
      I expect you or the others on this thread to somehow contort each example into "not applying to the person." You are all making distinctions without differences, just arbitrarily splitting hairs at the cost of a category which streamlines comprehension of US political strategy and electoral geography. This perspective is baffling to me: "A holdout who defies the odds to be rewarded by the electorate for their unique image? Oh, that doesn't possibly mean anything." 1Matt20 (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a less temporal version of Category:American politicians who are the most recent member of their party to hold statewide office. This category is widely discussed in mainstream reliable sources (though not by this specific name), as "maverick" politicians usually have outsize impact on American politics. --Habst (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternative to deletion: split into two separate categories, Category:Sole Democrats in Republican-majority U.S. states and Category:Sole Republicans in Democratic-majority U.S. states, with further explanation in the category pages. --Habst (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But why? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Editors insisting that this category is completely arbitrary is eyeroll-worthy. If someone is the one and only member of their party holding statewide office in their state, that is very plainly noteworthy. News coverage of such officeholders frequently mention their status as the only Democrat/Republican holding statewide office in their state; see news coverage of Nicole Galloway, Nikki Fried, Rob Sand, Kim Wyman, etc. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Trivia is not defining. To use one example, the fact that Susan Collins is temporarily the only Republican elected to a statewide office does not define her. At various times during her career in the Senate, fellow Republicans Paul LePage and Olympia Snowe were also elected to statewide office. Her temporary status as the only statewide elected Republican is non-defining.--User:Namiba 17:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as arbitrary and temporary. Susan Collins is far from being the only Republican to have served in statewide office in Maine. This category is a classic example of WP:PRESENTISM.--User:Namiba 19:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are completely mistaken about what the category means. It is for politicians who are CURRENTLY the only statewide officeholder. 1Matt20 (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. WP:BADGERING editors doesn't enhance your cause. I believe that this category should be deleted.--User:Namiba 19:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am simply responding to you. You'd be right if the category was named "American politicians who are the only member of their party to ever serve in statewide office." That is not the name, and therefore not the meaning. You are entitled to your belief and vote, even if it is based on a misinterpretation. I am entitled to respectfully engage until the discussion is closed. 1Matt20 (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Canvassed by 1Matt20 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics[11] and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography[12] (and also User talk:Tom.Reding and User talk:BottleOfChocolateMilk) with appeal for Keep votes, some description of arguments for deletion, and The Delete voters have been largely unresponsive, and even when they do respond, have been argumentatively selective and engage in sophistry. NebY (talk) 19:13, 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:American Football (band)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) QueenofHearts 06:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: User:JDBauby just added all the albums into this category and that is not helpful for navigation. This should be deleted, the albums kept in their appropriate album-related categories and band members put into Category:American Football (band) members, leaving this main category too small to exist. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if everything was organised (albums -> discography, members -> band members, etc.), would it not be good to have a master category that held all of these subcategories? JDBauby (talk) 08:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleaned it up a bit. Three subcats (albums, songs, members) plus a discography page have been enough to keep such eponymous parent cats in the past. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdrawn Per above: three legit categories and three legit articles in the main category is the bare minimum. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, QueenofHearts 00:19, 12 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 insect pathologists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: triple merge to all of the targets suggested. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. There are only two people in this category, which isn't helpful for navigation. Especially, when these are the only two pages in the Insect pathologists tree Mason (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For more opinions on where to merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, QueenofHearts 00:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either of the Merge targets that Marcocapelle has proposed are fine with me Mason (talk) 21:21, 13 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 11

Category:Canadian people of Arab descent

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 unopposed. (non-admin closure) Queen of ♡ | speak 03:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the content of this category is not only about ethnic Arabs but also about all sorts of other ethnic groups in the Middle East (Coptic, Assyrian etc.), to such an extent that it almost resembles the Middle East category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 11 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 whose articles for creation was denied

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 01:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians whose articles for creation was denied (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:USERCAT for lacking any discernible collaborative function. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 16:40, 12 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 never listen to country music

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 01:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who never listen to country music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC/U#not-based * Pppery * it has begun... 20:15, 11 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 have been abducted by Thebiguglyalien

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per WP:G7. (non-admin closure) QueenofHearts 23:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who have been abducted by Thebiguglyalien (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC/U#jokes WP:OC/U#Personal userspace categories. I hope you enjoyed April Fools Day 2024 everyone (I didn't, because it keeps leaving messes I have to clean up), but there's no reason for this category's continued existence. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but don't take this as G7, as I created to fix a redlink. Courtesy ping: Sawyer-mcdonell, who was the first to add this to his userpage. QueenofHearts 20:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    fine with me ... sawyer * he/they * talk 20:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tagged for G7. QueenofHearts 22:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment creator of the category has G7'ed it. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:42, 11 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 supporting social democracy

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 01:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians supporting social democracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC/U#Advocacy * Pppery * it has begun... 19:51, 11 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 loving software updates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 01:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians loving software updates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC/U#Irrelevant likes * Pppery * it has begun... 19:51, 11 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 with blue-linked categories on their user page

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. From WP:USERCATNO (linked by the nom):

Categories that are jokes/nonsense
This includes any grouping of users that is patently false (e.g. Wikipedians who are zombies, Wikipedians in their 780s), nonsensical (e.g. Userpages That Are Full Of LOL), undecipherable (e.g. Wikipedians who Watch animals from their POV), or created primarily for humourous or satirical purposes (e.g. Wikipedians who are one of an infinite number of monkeys). (my emphasis). Category clearly meets this. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians with blue-linked categories on their user page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC/U#All-inclusive WP:OC/U#jokes * Pppery * it has begun... 19:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: See WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Someone who's wrong on the internet: you are linking to an essay and it is unclear per part of the essay how many users agree with it. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe they were saying it is policy, nor do I think they were saying that it is something that needs to be agreed with. The essay points out a number of weak arguments that seem stronger than they actually are, or that are logical fallacies, etc. In this case, "per nom" is a very weak argument. Strong would be to retype the nom's argument exactly. Stronger still would be to restate the nom's argument in your own words. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copying nom's argument or restating the argument in different words does not add any new argument either, and that is what matters. The point is that nom's argument as such is strong enough to convince other editors. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this in an innocuous joke category. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:36, 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:Jewish communities in Palestine temporarily abandoned during the mandate period

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Category:Jewish communities in Palestine temporarily abandoned during the mandate period. The other category has been split from my original closure. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Jewish communities in Palestine temporarily abandoned during the mandate period to Category:?????
  • Propose renaming Category:Attacks against Jews in the Palestine region in modern history to Category:?????
Nominator's rationale: I don't know what to name these categories, but I think they needs more clear names. Mason (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Qwerfjkl:, I request that you reopen this case. No rationale at all was provided for "Jewish villages depopulated in Mandatory Palestine", and it seems like nobody actually checked what the category represents. What this rename means is that almost all the articles in the category will have to be removed from it because these places were only abandoned for a short time before the inhabitants returned. They were not "depopulated". The category will end up with only one or two entries. Zerotalk 23:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Qwerfjkl: by all means reopen/relist the discussion. For the record, the objection only applies to the first nominated category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened per request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I notice now that I had omitted the word "temporarily" merely by accident. However if these villages were abandoned for only a short period then it is not a defining characteristic and Category:Jewish communities in Palestine temporarily abandoned during the mandate period should be deleted rather than renamed. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Only referring to the first category in this comment.) My first preference is for the category to be deleted, and my second preference is for the current name (with "temporarily") to be kept. There are only a tiny number of places in the list that can reasonably be said to have been "depopulated" and some are not really "communities" (such as a cluster of houses inside a city). Zerotalk 02:53, 12 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.


Natural history

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 20:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Natural history of Afghanistan
  • Propose deleting Category:Natural history of Albania
  • Propose deleting Category:Natural history of Algeria
  • Propose deleting Category:Natural history of Andorra
  • Propose deleting Category:Natural history of Angola
  • Propose deleting Category:Natural history of Antigua and Barbuda
  • Propose deleting Category:Natural history of Argentina
  • Propose deleting Category:Natural history of Armenia
  • Propose deleting Category:Natural history of Austria
  • Propose deleting Category:Natural history of Australia
  • Propose deleting Category:Natural history of Azerbaijan
  • Propose deleting Category:Natural history of Canada
  • Propose deleting Category:Natural history of the United Kingdom
  • Propose deleting Category:Natural history of the United States
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 Afghanistan, Category:Environment of Albania etc. If consensus about this is likely I will also add the other countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 11 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:Words and phrases by language

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 20:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Many subcategories in it have the 'statute', like, ""This category is not for articles about concepts and things but only for articles about the words themselves. Please keep this category purged of everything that is not actually an article about a word or phrase". However I checked a couple and see that people dont care and put there items that are just about subjects that have title in foreingn language, such as e.g. Goralenvolk, Gokenin, Gradonachalnik.
  • Shall we undertake a really massive cleanup (and put these cats on watchlist to prevent from "contamination", since it will most surely happen )
  • or change the 'statutes' to reflect the status quo? I do feet that catigories, like, category:Russian terms to describe Russian culture are of value.- Altenmann >talk 19:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. While we are at that, it will make sense to double-check the ledes for proper "XXX is a term for YYY" vs. "XXX is YYY". For example two articles about basically same concept but in different cultures introduced dirfferently:
    • Mazhory (from majors; roughly translates as "the superior ones"[1]) is a slang term used in the Soviet Union and post-Soviet countries for children of privileged people,
  • vs:
    • Princelings (Chinese: 太子党), also translated as the Party's Crown Princes, are the descendants of prominent and influential senior communist officials in the People's Republic of China.
- Altenmann >talk 20:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we drop the requirement that the categories only contain articles about words themselves, then they just wouldn't be useful. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A category containing every article that is a word in a specific language would be far too inclusive.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 20:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dont think WP:NOTDICTIONARY is applicable here. Besides, We have articles such as Yiddish words used in English. Shouldn't the list items with articles be in a matching category?- Altenmann >talk 20:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Not necessarily, I don't think so. The article you mention already fulfills that exact purpose. Essentially my point is that if we drop the requirement in question then articles would be categorised purely based on their titles and not their scope, which I think is overcategorisation. It's not a very strong example of it, so I understand your concern, but I still think it's better if these categories of words and phrases only contain articles about words and phrases.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 20:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      ETA: I think list articles, like Yiddish words used in English, are a much better idea actually. I would be completely fine with list articles like those instead of putting non-word articles in the words categories.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 20:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The instruction on these category pages isn't clear at all. We should either remove the requirement or delete the categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: out of interest, what about it do you think is unclear?  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 20:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Words exist for the very purpose of referring to a concept or thing. It is not very well imaginable that we have articles about words that do not also discuss the meaning of the words. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's fair. Almost every article should have a definition of its title but most articles are much more than just the meaning and usage of the word. In that case, the header should read "articles about the usage of the word in language" or something else to that effect.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 23:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Dummelaksen: let me rephrase this slightly: "articles mainly about the usage of the word in language". The question is how much % of the article should be about the usage of the word in language in order to qualify for the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        A good article should be about one thing and one thing only, i.e. an article should be about the word itself, or not about the word itself. So ideally, 100%. In reality a lot of articles in these categories aren't written well so are about the concept, but are inappropriately written like dictionary definitions.
        I've been very conservative thus far, and only removed articles that are clearly about concepts, but many of these articles should be rewritten to avoid WP:NOTDICT and WP:REFERSTO.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 05:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should this category continue to exist? If so, how should it be organized? Specific proposals on the latter point would be appreciated!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 14:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Basically there are only two options: do nothing or delete. In the first option we may remove the requirement but even when the requirement is kept it will be ignored so the result is the same. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A rule (for lack of a better word) being ignored isn't reason to just give up and delete the categories though.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 16:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:56, 11 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

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 18#Category:Habitats Directive Species

Category:Vaisala Prize Laureates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 19:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Vaisala Prize Laureates to Category:Väisälä Prize Laureates
Nominator's rationale: The name of the prize is Väisälä Prize with umlauts. See the official webpage: https://acadsci.fi/en/grants-and-prizes/vaisala-prize/ Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCAWARD. If kept, we would probably need an English-language source to check the spelling in English. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's a better solution. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:10, 11 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:South Dakota state representatives

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 19:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:South Dakota state representatives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: this category is relatively small and redundant to the much larger Category:Members of the South Dakota House of Representatives.--TommyBoy (talk) 04:19, 11 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 saints

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 20:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:CROSSCAT. Not sure if this phenomenon has been discussed before, but I couldn't find it in the CFD archives. I'm nominating this to initiate a preliminary discussion on the wider Category:Christian saints by nationality tree, as I see several issues with the selection criteria in many parts of this tree, and this particular category exemplifies them well.
A. Objectivity and verifiability: Whoever is considered a "saint" or not is inherently subjective and WP:POV. If this is even the 'job' of Wikipedia to start with, the only way to objectively categorise saints is by the authority of a relevant religious organisation (in this case a church or denomination), which has officially canonised a person as a saint in verifiable publications (WP:V + WP:RS). Perhaps one person is canonised by multiple organisations, and perhaps lots of individuals in a community or society unofficially believe in a person's sainthood, but we may assume that the rest of the world, by default, does not accept anyone's sainthood, especially not of anyone in a religious denomination other than their own (if any). Certain denominations such as Calvinist churches even vehemently oppose the very idea of sainthood as blasphemous, and don't recognise the saints of any other church either. It's always a saint according to church X. I think we can all agree on that.
B. Relevance of nationality: "Nationality" seems irrelevant. Generally speaking, secular authorities like states and governments are not in the business of canonising saints. It might be that the feasts of certain saints are established as public holidays (say, Saint Patrick's Day in Ireland and some other jurisdictions), and that there is some official symbolism devoted to a saint, but it's not the Republic of Ireland's business to say who is a saint and who isn't. (Proclaiming "national heroes" maybe, but that's a separate issue). Similarly, it's not the Czech Republic's business to accord sainthood to, say, Jan Hus. There seems to be no particular connection between sainthood (a religious legal status) and nationality (a secular legal status). This is why I'm leaning towards regarding the whole saints by nationality tree an inappropriate WP:CROSSCAT.
C. Original research: Finally, even if nationality somehow were an appropriate attribute of a saint, a great number of these saints lived at a time when the present-day states did not exist yet. The Czech Republic wasn't founded until 1993, the Republic of Ireland not until 1922/1937/1949 (depending on one's view), the Netherlands not until 1581/1648/1813/1815 etc., so how could there be such a thing as medieval "Czech", "Dutch", "Irish" etc. saints? This seems obvious WP:OR, driven by modern nationalism to arbitrarily claim various elements of the past for a modern political entity. The catdesc of Category:Christian saints by nationality seems to confirm this: This category is for articles about saints by the country they were from or are associated with. That's a textbook example of WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH. Given that the relevance of "nationality" is already shaky, this seems even more reason to get rid of this kind of WP:ARBITRARYCAT.
I don't rule out the possibility that this category tree may be legitimate and useful after all. But I think we should at least discuss why we should have it or not. I'm also not picking on Czech saints in particular, it's just a very good example to illustrate the issues I'm seeing across the tree. (E.g. with "French saints" I wouldn't be able to raise point C. very well, as France's statehood arguably goes much further back and could arguably capture most medieval saints.) I would love to hear your thoughts. This is a large tree, we shouldn't be making rash decisions. NLeeuw (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nederlandse Leeuw I don't have time for a full response now, but WP:CROSSCAT is about articles and refers to Wikipedia:Overcategorization for categories, so I suggest that arguments should be based on WP:OVERCAT, rather than WP:CROSSCAT. TSventon (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but you'll notice I've invoked many more specific guidelines in my rationale: WP:POV, WP:V, WP:RS (these 3 issues can be overcome within the Category:Saints by religion tree, but not, I think, in the Category:Saints by nationality tree), relevance (I think nationality is WP:NONDEFINING for saints, because sainthood is not established through secular law, but ecclesiastical law, and denominations such as the Catholic Church and Constantinople Patriarchate operate internationally), WP:OR, WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH, and WP:ARBITRARYCAT. NLeeuw (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia categories exist to help readers navigate the encyclopedia and I think Category:Christian saints by nationality is justified on that basis.
    A. Objectivity and verifiability: I agree that you can argue there is a legitimate POV concern about Category:Christian saints.
    B. Relevance of nationality: Category:Christian saints is a large category, so it is useful for navigation to WP:DIFFUSE it. Nationality is an accepted basis for diffusing large categories, so I would suggest keeping national categories unless a better method can be found. Nationality is relevant as churches such as the Catholic Church and Constantinople Patriarchate are divided into national units, such as the Catholic Church in the Czech Republic and the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia. It is therefore not a WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Until the French Revolution, churches and secular governments in Europe were closely integrated and monarchs had an interest in who was canonised in their realms. Sometimes a saint would be canonised after being killed on behalf of a monarch. However sainthood should be a defining characterstic members of Category:Christian saints. If this is not the case for Jan Hus, he should not be in the category.
    C. Original research: This is an issue for Category:Czech people, rather than just Category:Czech saints. I would argue that both categories are useful for navigation and that nationality is just as WP:DEFINING for saints as for other human beings. Category:Czech people by century, for example goes back to Category:9th-century people from Bohemia. If the catdesc of Category:Christian saints by nationality says This category is for articles about saints by the country they were from or are associated with. then the words "associated with" could be removed. TSventon (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Medieval Roman Catholic dioceses in the Low Countries, Germany and France, with modern borders in red
    I agree with you that diffusing large categories is important for smooth navigation, but I agree with Marcocapelle below that Christian saints [should] only be diffused by century and no longer by nationality.
    I'm afraid the ecclesiastical organisation argument shoots itself in the foot. Church provinces coinciding with national borders is a very modern phenomenon, and not even the Catholic Church has enough adherents in every country to have a province for each of them. Take the example of the map on the right there, showing that in the Middle Ages the borders of archdioceses in the Low Countries almost completely ignored the country borders that exist today (because those country borders didn't exist at the time either).
    Evidently, Jan Hus was executed by the Catholic Church, which up until today regards him as a heretic and an enemy, whereas some but not all Orthodox and Lutheran denominations have canonised Hus as a saint. The sources provided - 64 and 65; two copies of the same 2011 interview with Christopher of Prague - state that Jan Hus has been canonised as a saint by the (Orthodox) Church of Greece, Church of Cyprus, and the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia. Only the last one is relevant if we are to decide whether Hus is a "Czech" saint or not, and according to the 2021 Czech Republic census, only 0.4% of the population is a member of the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia. The Czechoslovak Hussite Church bears his name and acknowledges him as their predecessor, but There is no veneration of saints as practiced in the Apostolic Churches, and they constituted only 0.2% of the Czech population in 2021. In fact, we might look at Religion in the Czech Republic as a whole and see that almost half of Czechs have no religion at all, fewer than 10% are Catholics (who officially regard Hus as a heretic), and the few who hold Hus in high regard don't even show up in the piechart. Besides, the two categories declaring Jan Hus a "Lutheran saint" are not backed up by sources at all. So, all religious denominations in Czechia today who recognise Hus as a saint combined barely represent the Czech population. Who are we Wikipedians to say that Hus is their "saint"? The Orthodox Greeks and Cypriots who nominally believe in his sainthood probably outnumber the Czechs who do. Nationality is just completely irrelevant here.
    If anything, we should have a Category:Saints in the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia as a child of Category:Eastern Orthodox saints. If we can't find enough to populate that category, then maybe we should listify them and make them a separate section in the main article Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia or something. Or, add Jan Hus to List of Eastern Orthodox saints with a source stating in which 3 orthodox churches he is currently recognised as a saint. Whatever we do, categorising as "Czech saints" is one of the worst options we could take here. NLeeuw (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NLeeuw I am arguing that we usually categorise people by nationality, so it helps navigation to categorise saints by nationality as well.
    Church provinces coinciding with national borders is not a modern phenomenon: the original dioceses were based on Roman dioceses. I will agree that the borders church provinces did not always and immediately change to follow state boundaries. However, as I argued earlier churches and secular governments in western Europe Europe were closely integrated, this can be seen in the History of Christianity in the Czech lands. Differing boundaries are an issue for subcategories of Category:Czech people and Category:Dutch people in general, not particularly for the saints categories.
    As to Jan Hus, the sourced text of the article should show that being a saint is a defining characteristic, which it apparently doesn't, so he could be removed from the category. Most of the contents of the Czech saints category is in Category:Czech Roman Catholic saints. Should that be nominated for deletion as well? Most of the members of that category are clearly connected to Bohemia and Moravia. TSventon (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Czech Roman Catholic saints is more specific, because that has a denomination or religious organisation behind it. I'm still not sure about the "Czech" part, but on the whole it is indeed less problematic.
    I think you may be right that Jan Hus should be removed from all or some saints categories, especially the Lutheran ones as long as the article doesn't say anything about it.
    For nationalities categories, we've been having a lot of constructive dialogue and agreements in recent years, including Category:People from the Kingdom of Bohemia, where Hus probably belongs. NLeeuw (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A is not so much a problem because Christian churches have set procedures for sainthood attribution. For more clarity the category may be renamed from "saints" to "Christian saints" though. B is a problem not in itself but because of C. For that reason I would suggest Christian saints only to be diffused by century and no longer by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your last suggestion is a rather useful one. (Although the earliest people later canonised as saints often have unclear lifespans; I'm thinking about Alban of Mainz, for example). Even if C weren't a problem, saints and nationality are still a contestable intersection as long as nationality is WP:NONDEFINING with regards to sainthood. The very nature of Christianity as a missionary religion with universal aspirations (that is, it seeks to convert all humanity, not just all members of the tribe / ethnicity / country / polity etc. it originated in) makes it arguably "internationalist", and nationality an irrelevant, modern invention. For navigational purposes we might have been pragmatic if "national" borders had been stable for the past 2000+ years (B), but they haven't (C), so... NLeeuw (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Part of Category:Christian saints by nationality, a large category tree. May not always be strictly accurate, but modern nationalities are commonly used for saints (i.e. they are especially venerated in the current countries from whose territory they originated). Categorisation of saints is clearly useful and it would not be advantageous to Wikipedia if we decided for NPOV reasons that saints weren't saints, as that is generally why they are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The size of a category tree is irrelevant if the tree itself is inappropriate to Wikipedia standards. It just means we need to be careful when dismantling or reorganising it.
    • As explained above, less than 1% of Czechs seems to venerate Jan Hus as a saint. (Nominally, there are probably more Greeks and Cypriots who do than Czechs). His main notability stems from the fact that the Hussite Wars are named after him (as his religious teachings ideologically influenced the conflict), not that a fringe church in the 20th or 21st century canonised him as a saint.
    • Categorisation of saints may be useful, but categorisation by what? E.g. we could categorise them by their favourite colour or their astrological sign, but those wouldn't be useful. Categories need to be WP:DEFINING.
    • As explained above, sainthood is always a POV. Some points of view are worth noting, but others are WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is not in the business of extensively documenting the beliefs of very small religious, political or other groups with near-zero cultural impact. NLeeuw (talk) 12:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      PS: The last point is related to WP:COATRACK#Some Famous Dude Did It so It Must Be Good. NLeeuw (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete primordialism is not a point of view that is widely accepted in the nationality studies field. Wikipedia should certainly not take it for granted with ill advised categories that project the current state of the Czech Republic beyond the 19th century nationalist movement into the medieval past, when modern nationality just didn't exist. "Saints from Bohemia" would be OK but non-defining, for the reasons explained above. (t · c) buidhe 01:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Splitting to Category:Saints from Bohemia and Category:Czechoslovak saints is a good intermediate solution though, until other nationalities are discussed too. But then we should do that for the Roman Catholic subcategory too. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with that. But what's wrong with Category:Bohemian saints? I don't think they're likely to be confused with the other meaning of "Bohemian"!- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistent with other "from Bohemia" categories, and also e.g. with "from Georgia (country)" categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:14, 10 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]

  • Comment I have taken a closer look at the interview with the archbishop of Prague about Jan Hus, and it seems that even the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia has not yet canonised Jan Hus and his follower Jerome of Prague as "saints" or "martyrs". There is only lobbying going on for them to be canonised at some point in the future, which the archbishop supports. The interviewer asks: Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague died a martyr's death for Christ's truth. Their memory lives on not only in Czechia. Your Beatitude, why have they not been canonized as saints? The archbishop gives various reasons why they haven't yet been, and then gives various reasons why they should be: ...Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague, died for the undistorted faith, for the pure faith of Christ—that is, for Orthodoxy. Therefore we are completely justified in canonizing them as saints. This has already been confirmed by the Church of Cyprus and the Greek Church. Other Orthodox Churches also support us. The penultimate sentence there is ambiguous: it could be read as that the Church of Cyprus and Greek Church have already canonised Hus and Prague as saints, or it could merely be a formal expression of support for the idea to canonise them as saints. This seems to be the core of the misunderstanding that Hus and Prague are already saints in those Orthodox Churches (which until now I also thought), but the interviewer's question indicates otherwise. (Incidentally, the archbishop saying that Hus and Prague died for "Orthodoxy" is his personal interpretation; some Protestant theologians may say they died for "proto-Protestantism", see below).
Second, I did find that there is some historical evidence that the Utraquists in the 16th century believed, described and praised them as saints, but they existed when there was no Czech Republic yet, and now that there is the Utraquists no longer exist. They were also a completely different denomination that is usually considered Protestant or "Proto-Protestant". Category:Hussite martyrs is a child of Category:15th-century proto-Protestant martyrs, which I find to be quite WP:SUBJECTIVECAT as well. I think this a good demonstration of how arbitrary and messy thus sainthood stuff can get, especially when we mix it up with nationality rather than by denomination (which is already messy enough). NLeeuw (talk) 13:17, 11 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:Crafts deities

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Crafts deities

Category:Meitei Brahmins

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: procedural keep. The nominator is welcome to start a broader discussion on the matter (and I'm happy to help with mass noms if need be). (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categories are identical PepperBeast (talk) 04:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No particular reason- it's just the one I spotted. PepperBeast (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer to have this discussed in broader context. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:10, 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) 02:45, 11 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:Shumang Kumhei

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) Qwerfjkltalk 20:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Shumang Kumhei (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Tiny category of just two articles (that are mutually linked). PepperBeast (talk) 04:24, 3 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) 02:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to parent categories per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 11 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:Meitei script

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. (non-admin closure) Queen of ♡ | speak 19:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Grab-bag of stuff defined by some use of a particular writing system... WP:TRIVIALCAT PepperBeast (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Purge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:34, 11 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 people by sexual orientation

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. No consensus on deletion. (non-admin closure) Queen of ♡ | speak 19:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To be similar with Category:Non-binary lesbians and Category:Transgender bisexual people, for example, among others. --MikutoH talk! 02:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly delete as a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support rename, and neutral on delete. But if we do delete we ought to manually merge the pages to the respective parents. Mason (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-defining intersection. (t · c) buidhe 01:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if this is deleted, make sure the articles are in the relevant non-intersection categories, as Mason says. -sche (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bohemian Baltimore, OwenBlacker, ForsythiaJo, Suonii180, Raladic, Trystan, AlexandraAVX, Brandmeister, and Historyday01: since y'all commented in here, you might be interested in this CdD. If Category:Non-binary lesbians and Category:Intersex lesbians are kept, so should be these. Also, why are these nonmonosexual non-binary trivial intersections but not Category:Bisexual women or Category:Pansexual men? (for @Buidhe and Marcocapelle:) Pretty sure asexuality and multisexuality are mutually/intimately linked with non-binary genders many times. --MikutoH talk! 22:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I support renaming the categories you have proposed, as I think it would make it easier for users and readers. I do not support a delete. Historyday01 (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is definitely some linkages, I agree, but as far as I can tell it hasn't made its way into RS yet. Bisexual men & women should be deleted because they are not defining for the individual even if there are specific stereotypes about the intersection of sexuality & gender in those cases. (t · c) buidhe 00:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge all to Category:People with non-binary gender identities. I don't see the need for these categories to exist. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 10:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, neutral on rename. It's a bit confusing at the moment because of the recent asexual/LGBT re-org that is at CfD elsewhere. But assuming Category:Asexual non-binary people gets returned to be a subcategory of Category:Asexual people, it is a necessary subcategory due to the parent cat being fully diffused by gender (Asexual men, Asexual women, Asexual non-binary people). Without it, a non-binary person that does not identify as a man or a woman could not be categorized as asexual. Same with Category:Bisexual people (Bisexual men, Bisexual women, Bisexual non-binary people). The current name order matches the pattern when viewed from the sexual orientation parent category; the proposed order would match the order when viewed from the non-binary parent category, so that seems to me to be a wash.--Trystan (talk) 02:36, 14 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:Shabbat observant businesses

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 18#Category:Shabbat observant businesses

Further back

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Previous 22 to 42 days and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Previous 43 to 63 days.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Previous_8_to_21_days&oldid=1048280107"