Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions

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

Speedy renaming and merging[edit]

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

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

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

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

(The four ~ will sign and datestamp the entry automatically.)
If the current name should be redirected rather than deleted, use: 

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

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

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

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

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 16:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 81 open requests (refresh).

Current requests[edit]

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

Opposed requests[edit]

On hold pending other discussion[edit]

  • None currently

Moved to full discussion[edit]

  • Oppose, not all articles in the category are about clergy. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Move to full? Mason (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Smasongarrison: fair enough, but I would advocate "religious leaders" rather than "clergy" per the other parent category. Religious leaders is broader than clergy. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd be fine with religious leaders. Mason (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Do not we have consensus here? Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Ymblanter: consensus yes, but C2C does not apply because the two parent categories have different formats (clergy vs religious leaders). If this were to be speedied, it could be done per WP:IAR. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I see, someone should take it to the full discussion. Ymblanter (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved to full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this is a category of princes, not so much of rebellions. Perhaps split. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe. Move to full then I guess? NLeeuw (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE: I have moved all of the following Categories here pending adequate confirmation of their eligibility under C2C. I made a serious effort to look for that, but was unable to find such confirmation. There is a massive jumbled welter of Categories in this realm, with no prevailing pattern that I can discern. Anomalous+0 (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now to all by ethnic or national origin nominations. 46.229.243.187 (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your opposition needs to have a reason. Mason (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The existing wording sounds more natural and is easier to understand. 46.229.243.187 (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved to full discussion:
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_30#Category:English_people_by_ethnic_or_national_origin
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_9#Category:Swedish_politicians_by_ethnic_or_national_origin
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_27#British_people_by_descent
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_6#Actors_by_ethnicity
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_7#People_from_British_Overseas_Territories_and_Crown_Dependencies_by_ethnic_or_national_origin
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_8#People_from_Overseas_France_by_ethnic_or_national_origin
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_9#Caribbean_people_by_descent
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_17#Category:Romanian_people_by_ethnic_or_national_origin_and_occupation
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_17#Category:Northern_Mariana_Islands_people_by_ethnic_or_national_origin
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_17#Category:East_German_people_by_ethnic_or_national_origin
Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except in the United States, the "by descent" format seems to be standard everywhere. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current discussions[edit]

Shortcut

May 26[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:India MPs 2019–present[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The 2024 Indian general election was declared and is currently going on. The term of the previous MPs definitely ended in 2024. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why such a rush? Let's not close this discussion until the 2019 parliament is formally dissolved. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer / oppose per Marcocapelle / WP:CRYSTAL. NLeeuw (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I could have justified my reasoning more. The synopsis of the last day of the Budget session of parliament on February 10, has the following statements:
    • Page 27: "Hon. Prime Minister and Hon. Members, the tenure of this Lok Sabha is drawing to a close today with this session of the Seventeenth Lok Sabha."
    • Page 35: "The National Song was played. (Thereafter, Lok Sabha adjourned sine die)" -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really, is India without a functioning parliament for a couple of months? In that case by all means rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 19 May 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) 16:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pilot licensing by country[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This is borderline c2c, but it could also be that there is no parent category for Pilot licensing. Mason (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Laicized Roman Catholic priests[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining, and borderline perfectcat Mason (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aircraft categories[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category with confusing name Mason (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Aircraft category is a technical term, not the same thing as an aircraft type. cagliost (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of bankruptcies[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There's only two pages in there that are actual lists. The rest is a collection of categories for companies that have declared bankruptcy. This isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have removed one page that shouldn't be in the category. Now we have two pages that should be in this category, and some subcategories. I don't see the problem for navigation. cagliost (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lifeboats of the Titanic[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. These two pages are already interlinked. This category really isn't helpful at this stage. Mason (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disability and lesbianism[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I encourage the category creator to make a main page about this intersection, because right now this just seems like a narrow collection at this 3xintersection of gender+disability+sexual orientation. Mason (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lesbians with disabilities[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining interseciton between gender+sexual orientation+disability, per WP:EGRS. (For the record, I am both queer, female, and disabled; and after searching the academic literature, I am extremely skeptical that this intersection is defining for individuals, given what litle i found). Mason (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Yorkshire geography stubs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unused stub templates. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to parent (Category:North Yorkshire geography stubs) per standard WPSS practice. In many of today's nominations, it looks like there is serious undersorting of stubs rather than an actual lack of need for their use. See comments under Central Bohemian geography stubs, above. Again, as there, the templates would be autimatically kept - it should be the categories that are proposed for deletion/upmerging. Grutness...wha? 03:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're now all finally used as they should be. Some of them (Harrogate, Hambledon, Richmondshire) have categories which are well over 60 stubs; the other templates can be upmerged - although serveral are close to the 60-stub threshold. Not sure why these were never used in the first place. Grutness...wha? 08:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • They were not used as I changed them to the parent North Yorkshire ready to delete them. Keith D (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gah. 1) why didn't you say that they were no longer used rather than unused, which implies that they had never been used?; 2 why didn't you comment when I said they were victims of undersorting?; and 3) why did you empty them prior to a deletion discussion which may result in them being kept? If you wanted to change them all to North Yorkshire, all you had to do was turn the templates into redirects to {{NorthYorkshire-geo-stub}}. You didn't need to go through this whole process! If you do go through this process, don't empty them first - do what it says to do on the tfd template! PS - if these districts are no longer used, what areas do you suggest splitting North Yorkshire into for stub purposes, as the NYk geo stub category will be over the 600 stub threshold for splitting? Grutness...wha? 16:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as "what links here" gives a list of articles that someone working on, for example, Craven, would want to develop. (The proposal is to delete the template, not the category, so admittedly the category could serve the same purpose.) --Northernhenge (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, no it wouldn't. Stub categories re populated by the template, so without the template there'd be no category! Grutness...wha? 05:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete districts aren't generally a good way of dividing stubs (or set categories) into. Its normally best to just put all in the ceremonial county. In addition these districts have been abolished for over a year. Also do the same with the Cornish ones. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete they are all out of date as have been abolished and just upmerge the categories they populated to North Yorkshire where they should now reside. Keith D (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Grutness, now that the cats are populated. Her Pegship (?) 17:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think there is some confusion here. The proposal seeks to delete the templates, but many people are commenting on whether the categories should exist. As the categories have not been tagged, I will do so. I will also note that many of the templates/categories are now in use.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disinformation operations[edit]

Nominator's rationale: this is follow-up on this previous discussion. After purging it is more clearly about disinformation, but does not clearly distinguish itself from its parent Category:Disinformation. Hence manually merge (only insofar appropriate). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Coddlebean, Nederlandse Leeuw, and Hmains: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    do not agree 'Disinformation' is a about a fact: false and misleading information. 'Disinformation operations' is about a process, something that people are organized to carry out, generally by a political entity of some kind. Very different articles involved, as they should be. Hmains (talk) 23:25, 18 May 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) 13:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Murdered Australian rules footballers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining 3x intersection between cause of death, occupation, and specific sport within that occupation. (Delete instead of merge because Murdered sportspeople only has this category in it, and has the same intersection issue) Mason (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of films by date[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't agree that it is redundant, it helps keep the parent category less crowded.★Trekker (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is 14 or 15 subcategories, that does not make the difference. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:43, 18 May 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) 03:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mountaineering organizations[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:Climbing and mountaineering organizations. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are both climbing and mountaineering organizations so the separation is no longer useful, better to have one single category called Category:Climbing and mountaineering organizations Aszx5000 (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Aszx5000: for thoughts on the discussions relisted today. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why relist when Marcocapelle and myself are in agreement on all of them? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are both saying the same thing? Aszx5000 (talk) 10:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aszx5000: I misread your proposal (Propose merging Category:Mountaineering organizations to Category:Climbing organizations). I will close these discussions now. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Works about mountaineering[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:Works about climbing and mountaineering. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per the recent CfD on Category:Climbing and mountaineering books, the Category:Works about mountaineering should be merged into Category:Works about climbing, which should then be renamed as Category:Works about climbing and mountaineering. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Mountaineering films[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge both to Category:Climbing and mountaineering films. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per the recent CfD on Category:Climbing and mountaineering books, the Category:Mountaineering films should be merged into Category:Climbing films, which itself should be renamed as Category:Climbing and mountaineering films. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Invasions by country[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category will never have more than its current 2 subcategories: Category:Invasions by country invaded‎ and Category:Invasions by invading country‎. It exists only by virtue of the ambiguous meaning of the word "country", which is only explained by the two subcategories. It therefore does not aid navigation, and should be upmerged to its parents so that direct navigation to the subcategories is possible. NLeeuw (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. "This category will never have more than its current 2 subcategories"? Check again, your argument is invalidated. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's just stacking the category with grandchild categories. It really doesn't aid navigation. It remains a redundant layer. NLeeuw (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick: What do you think about this? AHI-3000 (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nominated and delete all new subcats, merely creating extra container categories doesn't improve navigation between related articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support deleting all new subcats as nom. I don't know if I should tag them as well, but I think we should make clear to the creator that creating new subcats isn't very helpful in the middle of a CFD, and in fact somewhat disruptive. (There is probably a guideline against it, but I can't find it right now). I would ask @AHI-3000: to please stop creating new subcategories of this category for the duration of this CFD. Thanks in advance. NLeeuw (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw: Then cite which specific rule is against doing that. Your initial claim was that this category cannot grow larger than 2 subcats. AHI-3000 (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidently I was mistaken, for one could technically populate the category without actually solving the semantic and navigational issues I highlighted. NLeeuw (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete subcats Per WP:NARROWCAT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AHI-3000: if you were just trying to make a point it would be the most elegant solution if you would tag the new subcategories as G7. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: G7? AHI-3000 (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merge per nom. I don't see a reason to create multiple subcategories of Category:Invasions with little difference from the parent category. Dimadick (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the subcategories of Category:Invasions by country. As it stands, I currently am reading consensus to merge Category:Invasions by country as nominated and delete the subcategories (though, of course, consensus can evolve).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crystal City, Arlington, Virginia[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per request; I will tag the category.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]



May 25[edit]

Category:Buildings Downtown Portland, Oregon[edit]

Nominator's rationale: --Another Believer (Talk) 14:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It's the "Downtown" that distinguishes this category. Portland is a major city with many distinct neighborhoods. It would be helpful to look up buildings by neighborhood, rather than lumping every building in the city together. Thanks. Pickwiki (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pickwiki: If you're going to create subcategories, then I'd suggest Category:Buildings and structures in North Portland, Oregon, Category:Buildings and structures in Northeast Portland, Oregon, Category:Buildings and structures in Northwest Portland, Oregon, Category:Buildings and structures in South Portland, Oregon, Category:Buildings and structures in Southeast Portland, Oregon, and Category:Buildings and structures in Southwest Portland, Oregon, based on Category:North Portland, Oregon, Category:Northeast Portland, Oregon, Category:Northwest Portland, Oregon, Category:South Portland, Oregon, Category:Southeast Portland, Oregon, and Category:Southwest Portland, Oregon. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, rename to Category:Buildings and structures in Downtown Portland, Oregon. No opinion on whether than warrants a category. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery I've proposed a different way to subcategorize above, if you are interested in revisiting this discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Art awards by country[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There's a bit of an inconsistency issue in this category tree that's causing some confusion. All of the subcategories here are named "X art awards" except the American one, which is Category:American visual arts awards -- but the parent category is Category:Visual arts awards rather than "Art awards", which resulted in me having to do a major cleanup run to move a whole lot of articles that had been left in the parent instead of being moved to any of these subcategories, potentially because these are named differently than the parent and thus people didn't realize they existed. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is basically recommending renaming these categories then recreating them again. The sensible approach would be to extend the "Visual arts" tree, if that is what Bearcat thinks is needed. Sionk (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turkic Sufi saints[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There have been several cfds that found that Turkic foos aren't defining. It looks like this category was missed. Mason (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Singles by decade by record label[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No need to break them up by decade--that would be better handled with a discography anyway--and no need to have the scheme Category:Singles by decade (in the 21st century only) and record label. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, there was already a discussion about this. Sahaib (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 01:28, 17 May 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) 21:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Officers of Ipswich Corporation[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There is only one page here, which isn't helpful for navigation. I strongly encourage the category creator not to create categories with only one page in them. Mason (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even better! Mason (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Marco. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alder carrs[edit]

Convert Category:Alder carrs to article Alder carr
Nominator's rationale: I don't really know what to do with this category. I think it's for a very specific kind of wetland that only applies to a specific kind of tree. This category feels like a non-defining intersection between kind of tree and kind of landform, but I'm not an expert. Mason (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This category appears regularly as a feature on early Ordnance Survey maps. Leutha (talk) 08:18, 17 May 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) 21:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Romanian people by ethnic or national origin and occupation[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — nothing wrong with having only two subcategories, and as noted by Super Dromaeosaurus, there is potential for at least two more. — Biruitorul Talk 21:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Except for politicians (as Romania posits itself as a nation state, ethnic politicians often represent the interests of ethnic minorities), such association in entirely irrelevant and should not exists, per WP:EGRS. If somebody wants a random category intersection, there are tools out there that can create it using existing categories. Anonimu (talk) 15:32, 20 May 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) 21:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The two keep votes are both implicitly referencing SMALLCAT with mention of potential for growth. SMALLCAT is not longer a a criteria to keep a category. If ether of the keeps want to make more well populated categories that's great, but until then, the category is unhelpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Conspiracist media[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category contains medias that are mainstream, and most of these are from certain countries. Coddlebean (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete; perhaps upmerge A lot of these are indeed conspiracist media, like InfoWars. But categories are not a place where we can verify their status as conspiracist. That's a job for reliable sources in articles. WP:RSP can help. But verification of membership is probably a time-consuming effort. If we don't do that verification regularly, this risks becoming a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. But perhaps we should upmerge the category to its parents? NLeeuw (talk) 06:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean to delete, considering the fact that many articles are already in a more specific subcategory of Category:Conspiracy theories I don't think this category adds much value in itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep These are not mainstream media; they are something else. Whether or not they are mostly from certain countries is beside the point; they are from wherever they are from. Specific media outlets are quite different from specific theories and, as such, are not (and should not be) in the random set of articles I looked at in Category:Conspiracy theories. Hmains (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, to distinguish between media promoting conspiracy theories and those merely investigating them. Paleontologist99 (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Paleontologist99. - Amigao (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:25, 17 May 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) 21:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated places on the Underground Railroad[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Specific buildings which served as stations on the Underground Railroad are absolutely defined by it but an entire town, city or county is usually not. In some cases, certain locales like New Bedford, Massachusetts were such hubs of the Underground Railroad that they should be kept in the main category but that can be done on a case by case basis. User:Namiba 15:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep These are historically related places. They were certainly defining for these places during the historical period involved here: 1840s and 1850s in the United States. These illegal activities were something that many people in a place were at least silently aware of and did not bring to the attention of law enforcement. In many cases, the articles do not point to a specific building(s) so there is no use in thinking that will keep tying these together, as they should be. Hmains (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it defining though? In most cases, no. Neither Portland, Maine nor most other cities are not defined by the fact that they had a stop in the Underground Railroad. For cities which are defined as such, they can and should be categorized within the tree. If you can show otherwise, I will withdraw the nomination.--User:Namiba 17:07, 14 May 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) 00:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious buildings and structures destroyed in the Muslim period in the Indian subcontinent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content. They are all Hindu temples. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the alt rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Great Britain[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Option A: remove header and a remove a number of parent categories. Option B: nominate subcategories for merger. In any case, the current content of the category is completely out of sync with how the category creator(s) intended. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palestinian American activists for Palestinian solidarity[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. This is an extremely narrow intersection of activists for a specific cause, intersecting with nationality and ethnicity. Mason (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dual merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Middle Eastern anti-racism activists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category lawyer with only three middle eastern nationalities in it. Mason (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Yoruba Muslim leaders[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename per Category:Yoruba religious leaders. This category was at WP:CFDS for a different rename proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
  • Oppose, not all articles in the category are about clergy. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Move to full? Mason (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Smasongarrison: fair enough, but I would advocate "religious leaders" rather than "clergy" per the other parent category. Religious leaders is broader than clergy. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd be fine with religious leaders. Mason (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Do not we have consensus here? Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Ymblanter: consensus yes, but C2C does not apply because the two parent categories have different formats (clergy vs religious leaders). If this were to be speedied, it could be done per WP:IAR. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I see, someone should take it to the full discussion. Ymblanter (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Mason (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terrorist incidents in Venezuela[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This category only has one page in it and it's also not clear cut if the one page Attack on Fort Paramacay is terrorism. Mason (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Male bacteriologists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between being male and a specific kind of biologist, under per WP:EGRS Mason (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women speculative fiction editors[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between editor, genre of editing, and gender. There's no male editor category in general. Mason (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Michigan-Ontario Collegiate Conference football seasons[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only one subcategory. Let'srun (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; part of well-established tree. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, categorization by year suffices in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 17 May 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) 15:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Template Large category TOC on category with up to 1200 pages[edit]

Nominator's rationale: We have sub-tracking categories either to avoid a massive parent category or because different situations require different fixes. The category tree is currently empty, so it is not the first one. And they all require the same fix (swapping to {{Automatic category TOC}}; you don't need a large TOC for categories which have fewer than 1200 members). Therefore, there is no need for this amount of granular detail; one tracking category is plenty. (See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 23#Category:Categories without CatAutoTOC and friends.) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Template Category TOC on category with X–Y pages[edit]

Nominator's rationale: After Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 23#Category:Categories without CatAutoTOC and friends, these are all redundant category layers with one subcategory. Merge all to Category:Template Category TOC tracking categories. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Template Category TOC on category with over 1200 pages[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 keep. (Withdrawn.) (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following up on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 23#Category:Categories without CatAutoTOC and friends, I think that this category makes the most sense as part of Category:Categories which use Category TOC without Automatic category TOC. (If a category does use {{Automatic category TOC}} and has more than 1200 pages, it will automatically use {{Large category TOC}}. Therefore, any category with more than 1200 pages with {{Category TOC}} does not use {{Automatic category TOC}}.) This merge will also allow for a massive simplification to the code of Template:Category TOC/tracking. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American Roman Catholic poets[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I think we should broaden this category because there's no Roman Catholic poets parent category and all the siblings under category:Catholic poets by nationality are FOOian Catholic poets. Mason (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I honestly had no idea there were types of Catholics until today but I agree, this should match other similar categories to this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, diffusion by church body within the Catholic Church is only useful if there are a significant number of Eastern Catholics too, but that does not seem to be the case here. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Activists for Palestinian solidarity[edit]

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

Category:Southeast Asian people of Brazilian descent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: We do not categorize descent categories by regions; we only group them by continents and countries. I do not see any valid reason to make an exception for Southeast Asia. Aldij (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Southeast Asian people of Chinese descent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: We do not categorize descent categories by regions; we only group them by continents and countries. I do not see any valid reason to make an exception for Southeast Asia. Aldij (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Academic libraries in Algeria[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge for now. There are only two redirects in this category, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works by Sidi Boushaki[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Only one poem in here, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Algerian inventions[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Redudant category layer (merge for now). The lone child category is already in all the parent categories it needs Mason (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Early modern period[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename. First, a capital M is not needed, per Early modern period, Category:Early modern period and Category:Early modern period by country. Next to that, we may harmonize the categories further to either "Early modern country" or "Early modern history of country". I will add targets to the nomination when the latter becomes a bit more clear in the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to Early modern history of Fooland, lowercase "m" (following several recent precedents), and "history of" to prevent any anachronisms about countries that didn't yet exist, or didn't yet have their modern names (at least not in contemporary sources, or historiographical convention / common parlance), e.g. the Netherlands (most but not all was the Dutch Republic), the United Kingdom (most but not all was the Kingdom of Great Britain), Ukraine (most but not all was the Cossack Hetmanate or Hetmanshchyna), Germany (HRE, you know the drill), Belarus, India, etc. NLeeuw (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nom and Nleeuw. Excellent points! Mason (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nom and Nleeuw. I concur with Mason. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sportspeople by sport and populated place[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Per a discussion in speedy. We should first change "city or town" to "populated place" before proceeding with nationality categories. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Marcocapelle, @Smasongarrison, and @Armbrust from the speedy discussion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all. When these were made, "city or town" was the standard for WP categories, but the more inclusive "populated place" is now the norm and makes perfect sense. Grutness...wha? 10:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nom. And thanks Omnis for doing the legwork on getting these cats in line with the populated place norm. Mason (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per several recent cases in which we renamed this way. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to see them renamed accordingly, less clumsy than the current names. Sionk (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: If these are renamed as proposed, therare a lot of by-country subcats of these which will also need renaming. Grutness...wha? 02:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grutness, if this gets through, those will be done in the next one or via speedy. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good - thanks. Grutness...wha? 15:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Basketball people by city or town[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent categories. Only one category layer. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Involving countries[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with Category:Wars involving former countries and similarly-named categories of non-state actors (e.g. Category:Battles involving peoples, Category:Wars involving peoples; supranational organisations like Category:Peacekeeping missions and operations involving the United Nations; rebel groups like Category:Military operations involving the al-Nusra Front; alliances like Category:Wars involving NATO and Category:Military operations involving the Warsaw Pact, etc.), and to avoid confusion with "countries formerly involved in war X". Follow-up to preliminary discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 22#Involving former countries or by former country involved, where it was found best to let go of the "by country involved" formula as the de facto standard. NLeeuw (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: courtesy ping for follow-up discussion. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saipan[edit]

Nominator's rationale: To match the article name, which was just changed because of recent consensus that WP:USPLACE applies to U.S. territories. -- Beland (talk) 06:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:USPLACE does not apply to islands, does it? Besides articles about towns on Saipan are formatted as "town, Saipan", not as "town, Northern Mariana Islands". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tinian[edit]

Nominator's rationale: To match article name, which was changed per recent consensus that WP:USPLACE applies to U.S. territories. -- Beland (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rota (island)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: To match article name - moved due to recent consensus that WP:USPLACE covers U.S. territories. -- Beland (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heliports in Massachusetts[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Category lacks subjects. Let'srun (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge for now without prejudice per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 06:19, 9 May 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) 17:10, 17 May 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) 04:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Administrative divisions of the United States by state[edit]

Nominator's rationale: It contains pages and subcategories for US territories, and there is no Category:Administrative divisions of the United States by territory or Category:Administrative divisions in United States insular areas or similar that I could find. Which would contain only a small number of pages and subcategories. -- Beland (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women portrait painters[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge for non-defining intersection of gender+type of artist+subject matter of the artist under WP:EGRS Mason (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Plurisexual people[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I hate to be that person, but... neither of the two people added to the category have the word plurisexual mentioned anywhere on their pages. Is this really a defining category for individuals, under WP:EGRS? Because it effectively seems like its extremely similar to this CFD for Polysexuality Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_26#Polysexuality. I've always thought of it as an umbrella term to allow for the grouping of queer, bi, and pansexual people, rather than a term that is used to describe individual people. [1] [2] If the category is kept, I think it should be containerized. Mason (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 24[edit]

Category:Characters designed by Toby Fox[edit]

Nominator's rationale: You may not agree with this, however I'm nominated this category deletion since every article (except Gaster) is also in the category for undertale characters. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Intersex plurisexual people[edit]

Nominator's rationale: These categories are too small, merging would make them bigger together. --MikutoH talk! 23:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, we do not have a category tree for plurisexual people. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Intersex gay people[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Merge both to intersex gay people as separately they are too small, also based on Category:Non-binary gay people (though it should be noticed that Category:Gay people is a soft redirect). See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Intersex lesbians and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Intersex transgender people. --MikutoH talk! 23:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, we do not have a category tree for gay people. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meuse-Argonne American Cemetery[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, it only contains the eponymous article and a subcategory, which isn't helpful for navigation. Thd subcategory suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politics of Lorraine[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, Lorraine is meanwhile a defunct administrative division, now part of Grand Est. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omaha people[edit]

Nominator's rationale As there is only one recognized Omaha tribe, the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska (that is the official tribal name on the federal register), change this category's name to match the official name and get rid of the clunky parentheses. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ZeniMax Media stubs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Insufficiently large stub category for ZeniMax Media and its subsidiaries. Most pages are already tagged with at least one genre stub type. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cartoon Network stubs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Stub category no longer populated enough to warrant retention. As always, stub categories need to have a minimum of 60 articles, but after I detagged a handful of articles that were too long to be tagged as stubs at all this went from 25 to 20. It has existed in its current form since 2011, after being deleted as underpopulated in 2007 -- but was then tagged as underpopulated again in 2018, until that template was deleted at TFD, so it's not entirely clear that it was ever really adequately populated at all.
Even the 20 pages that are here are a bit of a random grab bag, as it's populated mainly by video game or album tie-ins to Cartoon Network programming and/or foreign channels that franchised Cartoon Network or Boomerang branding, rather than things that actually have much to do with the Category:United States television stubs parent -- so it's not at all clear that there are actually very many things that could be added here to get it back over 60 articles again. It's not generally standard practice, at any rate, to stub-tag things for overly specific associations like particular TV networks; WikiProject Cartoon Network already has project templates on the talk pages anyway, so this isn't serving any important purpose that isn't already being served elsewhere. Bearcat (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Modern serif typefaces[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Modern serif typefaces to Category:Didone serif typefaces
Nominator's Rationale: Didone is a more common term for this typeface classification. (Didone (typography)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jothefiredragon (talk • contribs)

Wingate Bulldogs women's basketball‎[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Both of the categories exist for one member, Ginny Boggess. Qwerfjkltalk 16:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battles by location in Germany[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. See also recent precedents. NLeeuw (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Showrunners of animated shows[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I made a mistake when I created this category. We consistently use the term series and not show to describe TV, so it should be changed for consistency. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 15:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This rename is a good idea and I definitely support it. Using "series" rather than "shows" certainly makes sense. Historyday01 (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arkansas Tech Wonder Boys football seasons[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Category lacks subjects Let'srun (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles of the Byzantine–Bulgarian Wars in Thrace[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. See also recent precedents. NLeeuw (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual or triple merge for now. While the parent categories still exist, we shouldn't remove content from them. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles involving the Medes[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Each of the battles in this category took place during the existence of the Median kingdom (c. 678 BCE–c. 550 BCE), namely in 614 BCE or later. It is better to categorise battles by states involved than with the people dominating that state, unless they had no state of their own, but the Medes did have this kingdom throughout this period. NLeeuw (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure. The existence of a Median kingdom seems to be controversial. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Interleague play[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Contents are mostly about historical MLB rivalries, not about interleague play. All of these can be found in Category:Major League Baseball rivalries or in the categories of respective leagues (MLB and NPB). Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2010s in Sidon[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, only one article in this category, which is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge for now without prejudice. NLeeuw (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works set in abandoned buildings and structures[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename, this is follow-up after this earlier discussion, it is a first trial nomination. The word "setting" is only or mainly used in the context of fiction. With non-fiction we use "works about" rather than "works set in". The proposal is to rename the subcategories and purge any non-fiction that is still in them. I don't think there is any non-fiction in the currently nominated subcategory though. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03, Zxcvbnm, RevelationDirect, and Jc37: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment/Question I agree "set" implies fiction. One possible alternative to changing the (potential) scope might be to change the wording. Looking at Category:Television shows by location, which includes tons of allegedly non-fiction reality shows, would Category:Works located in abandoned buildings and structures work as an alternative? (This is a sincere question, I'm open to either approach so long as we follow this trial nomination with renaming the rest.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Literary non-fiction also includes setting as a defining feature. It’s ill advised to move an entire category tree structure that is working. This structure works well for both fiction and non-fiction literature and I see no reason to start differentiating in this way.4meter4 (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hamas bombers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: "bomber" is not an occupation. User:Namiba 01:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although the category had only 2 members when nominated, it could easily be populated with more. I just added Mohiyedine Sharif, Yahya Ayyash, Samar Sabih, and Nidal Farahat. Most of these were already in Category:Hamas military members. It might be worth re-parenting Category:Hamas bombers to Category:Hamas military members, although that would leave Category:Hamas members by role pretty much empty. I think it is quite a redundant layer anyway; we could Upmerge it to Category:Hamas members instead. NLeeuw (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a redundant layer and we do not have this kind of intersection for other groups.--User:Namiba 00:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 23[edit]

Category:Trans-related suicides[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Based on several categories in Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Transgender-related. --MikutoH talk! 23:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comic book editors[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The term "comic book" is used for periodical comics publications and is not inclusive of manga, webcomics, graphic novels, etc. "Comics editors" is inclusive of all forms of comics. Thematthewmurray (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Those are different industries, don't mix apples and oranges. Rather create "manga editors" in Category:Manga industry and list them there. As for the others, graphic novels may not be the same as comic books, but the industry that makes them is the same one, so there's no problem grouping them together. And are there webcomic editors? isn't that a self-published genre? Cambalachero (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While there have been webcomics editors for years, the rise of webcomic platforms/sites like Webtoon and Tapas mean that they are more prominent than before.
Since you suggested splitting out Japanese editors, I'll mention that the category also currently includes comics editors who worked in the comics industries in Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, Serbia, and the UK. Thematthewmurray (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the industry of webcomics is so developed now, then yes, create a third category for them. As for Japan, Japanese comics are a specific and distinct genre in its own right. Can we say the same of the comics of those other countries? Cambalachero (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are pages for Bande dessinée (Franco-Belgian comics), Brazilian comics, Comics in Mexico, Manhua (Chinese comics), Dutch comics, Serbian comics, and British comics. I am far from an expert in all of these, but I feel that some of them (such as Franco-Belgian comics) are easily as developed as Japanese comics.
I'll also mention that the majority of other categories for comics-related positions use the term "comics." Category:Comics creators, Category:Comics writers, Category:Comics artists, Category:Comics colorists, and Category:Comics inkers. (The one exception is Category:Comic book letterers.) Additionally the subpages are in the same format: Category:Comics writers by nationality. Thematthewmurray (talk) 16:56, 11 May 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) 02:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kingdom of Luang Phrabang[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Merging is not needed, the subcategory is already in appropriate parents. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Central African Republic people[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Although most nationality categories are named 'Fooinan people', there are several exceptions: Category:People from Georgia (country), Category:People from Northern Ireland, Category:People from the State of Palestine, as well as almost all subcategories in Category:People by former country and about half of those in Category:People by dependent territory. I think 'People from the Central African Republic' is a much clearer and better name in English than 'Central African Republic people'. Aldij (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "People from Foo" is used where "Fooian people" is not feasiable. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories without CatAutoTOC and friends[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) Qwerfjkltalk 10:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:

This whole tree needs a little bit of love. I came here to propose a speedy rename from "Foo CatAutoTOC bar" to "Foo Automatic category TOC bar" following a RM at Template talk:Automatic category TOC#Requested move 28 April 2024, but I think this whole tree needs to be simplified. It is so small that diffusing by number of pages in the category is a hindrance to navigation. I will also note that Category:Categories without CatAutoTOC is terribly named: it only contains categories which use {{Category TOC}} or {{Large category TOC}} directly.

I propose we get rid of the tree and replace it with two categories, one for each template: Category:Categories which use Large category TOC without Automatic category TOC and Category:Categories which use Category TOC without Automatic category TOC. Finally, I propose we delete Category:Categories without CatAutoTOC in favor of a hatnote between the two new categories. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Adam Black talk • contributions 16:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only one to use this category really has been banned and there really is no indication what purpose this serve once the data was collected. So agree with proposal. If at any point in the future this or something similar is needed, recreating isn't that difficult. Gonnym (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Ipswich town preachers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category that is effectively is the same. Mason (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Propose capitalisation: move Category:Ipswich town preachers to Category:Ipswich Town Preachers. When this category entered the jigsaw world of signs, known as wikipedia, it was unclear whether the category should use uppercase letters to initialise not merely Ipswich, but also "Town Preacher". The Oxford Academic use lower case, but local historian John Blatchly goes for uppercase. I think the advantage of this that it is clear that this refers to people who held a formal role, rather than a simply being a wikipedia category that lists Clergy from Ipswich. Often Ipswich Corporation appointed people from elsewhere. Bearing in mind the significance of some of those who occupied this role such as Samuel Ward (minister) or Cave Beck, it would seem appropriate to have such a category. I feel that capitalisation will indicate the category is more formal/historical. Leutha (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I've reverted your unexplained removal of this category from the proposed merge target. How is this category not Clergy from Ipswich? And why is the current category parented by 17th-century clergy. Mason (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen from the discussion above, the category is quite formal. Many people filing this role were not from Ipswich: Samuel Ward (minister) was from Haverhill, Matthew Lawrence (preacher) was from North Lincolnshire, Cave Beck was from London. The references for the Town Preachers are largely consistent from 1604, G. R.Clarke gives a list of 7 before 1604 in his 1830 The history and description of the town and borough of Ipswich : 343 . However only one appears in Blatchly's list in his book on The Town Library of Ipswich (1989): 177 . Any suggestions as regards how to handle the earlier individuals such as Roger Kelke, the Marian exile who returned to become Ipswich Town Preacher from 1560 until 1575, according to Blatchly? ibid : 4 . Leutha (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok... so it sounds like this information would be better served as a list. Categories are supposed to be there to help people navigate between pages. I would *strongly* encourage you to look at how other categories handle clergy from a region.
It seems like you are under the impression that People from a city is only for people who were born from the city. That's too narrow of a definition, as Bishops of CITY/ diocese are placed within the clergy from CITY/REGION etc category. And, so if I am understanding your very long comment, you're added the parent because there's only one example of of a precher from before the 17th century, but you don't speak to what about after the 17th century. Mason (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Oxford University Press Delegate[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non defining. If not merged, it should be renamed to Oxford University Press "delegates" Mason (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unreal Engine 5 games[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Duplicative with Category:Unreal Engine games. No merge required, as all members of the nominated category are in the original already. Each version of Unreal Engine is not independently notable or distinct. -- ferret (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree because Category:Unreal Engine games is very large and spans more than two decades of video games. There isn't much use in knowing that a game was made with "just" Unreal Engine from the point of view of someone reading about the game compared to knowing that it was made in Unreal 5 which tells you a lot more about what you can expect from the game both in terms of graphics and gameplay (that is, within a given specific genre). Similarly, there isn't much use in knowing a game was made in "just" Unreal from the point of view of someone reading about Unreal itslef as nobody develops games in "Unreal Engine." Consider also that the Video Game infobox Engine field usually has the Unreal Engine version listed, not just "Unreal Engine", because just listing "Unreal Engine" is not so useful. Each version of Unreal is a separate piece of software. Also, not all members of the nominated category are in the original already (at least at the time that I added some of them).
As a separate but related point, I feel that all versions of Unreal Engine should be separate articles on Wikipedia. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I propose instead of deleting the category, it should be a sub-category under Category:Unreal Engine games. In fact, I think the all the pages under this category also should be sorted by Unreal Engine type, i.e. UE1, UE2, UE3 and UE4. This rationale is made since the list of games for each Unreal Engine version is deleted, and there should be categories that list by version to clean up Category:Unreal Engine games. Otherwise the alternative is to simply delete Category:Unreal Engine games. ~ Limyx826 (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criteria for categories are stricter than for lists so if lists per version were deleted, categories per version should certainly be deleted as well. Then Category:Unreal Engine games suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1941 junior college football season[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Category lacks subjects. Let'srun (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Member of an established class of categories. Let'srun, this is another obstructive nomination by you. I am getting very close to seeking a remedy for your behavior. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, it is pointless to diffuse junior college seasons by year. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle why is it pointless? I'm not even sure that Category:1941 junior college football season should be a child of Category:1941 college football season instead of a sibling under Category:1941 in American football. That needs to be discussed. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The large amount of these categories contains only one article, this is not helpful for navigation between articles at all. The article in the nominated category is also in Category:Junior college football undefeated seasons, and while I am not sure if "undefeated" is a defining characteristic, at least this category does provide the opportunity to navigate easily to a significant number of related articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female drug traffickers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between gender, criminal, and specific kind of crime committed. I don't think that this holds up under WP:EGRS. Mason (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, how is this any less defining than other subcategories of Category:Female criminals? AHI-3000 (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick: What do you think of this? AHI-3000 (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists assassins[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There's only one actual page in here along with a redirect. Merge for now, as this page isn't very helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 02:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge per nom: I created this category, but as the nom points out it doesn't seem to be a useful intersection. GCarty (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dual merge per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sexual violence in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one page in here, which makes it difficult to navigation between the various related pages in the parent categories. Mason (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Legend of Zelda (TV series)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The main and only article for this category was merged. The redirect category could be merged into Category:Works based on The Legend of Zelda, but I am not sure on that. (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 22[edit]

Category:First-person video games[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unlike the other category I nominated for deletion (Video games using procedural generation) this category sincerely deserves to go. Firstly, it's not much defining trait for all video games as a whole (more defining for shooters and some adventure games). Secondly, it does not include every single title that is first-person (such as Subnatica or Baldi's Basics isn't there). In conclusion, this category just doesn't work and more importantly does not list every single First-Person Game. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Imperial China by religion[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies based in Williston[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Single-entry microcategory for a small town. Categories like this do not automatically need to exist for every place that has one company based there, and should wait until there are five or six companies to file in it. For added bonus, the article filed here was left duplicate-filed in both the Category:Companies based in North Dakota and Category:Williston, North Dakota parents alongside this, so no upmerging is even needed because it's already in both of the potential upmerge targets. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Manufacturing companies based in West Fargo, North Dakota[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow intersection of characteristics, resulting in categories with just one entry each. While some "Manufacturing companies based in Specific-City" categories do exist for major US cities with a lot of articles to be filed there, like Los Angeles or Chicago or NYC, they do not need to exist right across the board the moment a smaller city or town has one manufacturing company with an article.
No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when there are five or six articles that can be filed in each of them, but it does not aid navigation to funnel everything down into microcategories of one. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Natural death while driving[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Category for a non-defining characteristic. We certainly have some categories for the cause of people's deaths, but we do not have any scheme of categorizing people for tangential circumstances around their deaths, such as what otherwise unrelated thing they happened to be doing at the time. So if driving a car wasn't the cause of their death (e.g. in a car accident), then the relationship between death and driving is not a category-worthy characteristic.
It's also not at all applicable to one of the two people filed here — Grace Kelly survived both the initial brain hemorrhage and her car going over a cliff, and died only the next day of a second cerebral hemorrhage that she suffered in the hospital after having been diagnosed with a good chance of surviving the first one. So she clearly didn't die while driving, and the category wouldn't belong on her even if it were defining for anybody else. (To be fair, I will grant that most people probably "remember" her death as being caused by the car accident itself, rather than all the nuances, but "correcting popular misconceptions" is not what categories are for.) Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. Well-argued, I completely agree with the rationale here. We could create all sorts of interesting categories like Natural death while watching television, Natural death while reading the newspaper in the dentist's waiting room or Natural death while walking the dog around the block, but this is all WP:NONDEFINING. NLeeuw (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per nom. Agree with Nwleeuw that Bearcat makes a really good case. Mason (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South Park episodes featuring video game consoles[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Category for a non-defining characteristic. We do not have any scheme of "[Series] episodes featuring [minor plot point]" categories for this to be a part of, and the episodes are not defined by having video game consoles in them as plot points. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Mason (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is a non-defining characteristic. Let'srun (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chicago and North Western Railroad municipalities[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Single-entry category for a non-defining characteristic. Wikipedia does not have any established scheme of categorizing populated places for the railway lines that happen to pass through them, and one small village of just 1,500 people does not need special treatment over and above all the other towns and cities in the world that are located on railway lines but not categorized for that. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Macedonian people[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Per MOS:MAC categories should avoid adjectival use altogether. The use of neutral formulations such as "of North Macedonia", "in North Macedonia," etc. is preferred. Although most nationality categories are named 'Fooinan people', there are already several exceptions: Category:People from Georgia (country), Category:People from Northern Ireland, Category:People from the State of Palestine, as well as almost all subcategories in Category:People by former country and about half of those in Category:People by dependent territory. Aldij (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The 2018 Prespa Agreement stipulated in Article 1. Section 3.b: The nationality of the Second Party shall be Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia, as it will be registered in all travel documents. This is one of the compromises with binding legal effect: the country is called North Macedonia, but its nationals are called Macedonians. Therefore, we should not divergence from the Fooian people naming scheme for categories in the Category:People by nationality tree. NLeeuw (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UK MPs 2019–present[edit]

Nominator's rationale: A general election has just been announced and Parliament will be dissolved by the end of the week. --Ferien (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt proposal: speedy rename to Category:MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election per WP:C2D List of MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election. This makes sense and prevents us from having to rename categories continuously whenever Parliament is dissolved. NLeeuw (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nederlandse Leeuw, it's a bit misleading to call the category "MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election" when 23 of the MPs were elected in by-elections instead. 2019–2024 describes the Parliament the MPs are sitting in and for this reason, I'm not entirely sure the title of that article is ideal for covering by-elections, although that is a discussion for another forum. Part of me wants to say sort by Parliament and call this one UK MPs of 58th Parliament or something similar, but would that be familiar enough for readers?.. I'm not sure. --Ferien (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair. NLeeuw (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian families by ancestry‎[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Standard for Category:Families by ancestry tree. Aldij (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russian families by ancestry‎[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Standard for Category:Families by ancestry tree. Aldij (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Turkmenistan-women-footy-bio-stub[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary stub template. Wikipedia does not have any standard practice of segregating male and female footballers with separate stub templates or categories -- stub is a temporary maintenance state of the article, not a core characteristic of the subject, so the stub category system does not always need to be as precisely trait-sorted as main permanent content categories are. (See e.g. actors and actresses, who are gender-sorted in main content categories but share one common stub category rather than being gender-sorted in that tree.) So we just tag women and men with the same "Country-footy-bio-stub" tag, and I can't find any other country where male and female footballers have separate stub tags or categories from each other.
Yet this was newly created within the past week, for just one person whose article wasn't even a stub in the first place and thus wouldn't even have needed the already-existing {{Turkmenistan-footy-bio-stub}} anyway, and tried to file her in a redlinked stub category that doesn't exist to have people filed in it but could not have been created for less than 60 people either — so the only alternative would have been to replace it with the same category that the other template is already using, thus vitiating any reason why two separate templates would have been needed even if the article had been a stub. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:European families of Irish ancestry[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There is no need for separate categories for European nationalities. Aldij (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indian royals in British Indian Army[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. This is an interesting, but non-defining intersection between royalty, nationality, military service. Perhaps a list? Mason (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mason, thanks for the consideration of these categories. I created these three categories because Indian royals did have representation in the British Indian Army. These were mostly in ceremonial roles, as, for instance, honorary colonel, honorary major general, or more substantively in some cases, as, for instance, involvement in actual fighting or sending troops to the fights of the British Indian Army. The royals to whom I have added these three categories are all princes, rajas, or maharajas of Indian princely states. British India was composed of these two kinds of territories - regions under direct British administration, and the princely states, which came under the suzerainty of the British Crown. The rulers of the latter were required to provide men for various imperial wars, and sometimes went to serve in such wars themselves too. By creating these three categories, I thought of pooling together known instances of Indian princely state rulers and their family members who were in any capacity related to the British Indian Army. One of these three categories, however, can do better with renaming: Former Indian royals in Pakistani Army can simply become Former royals in Pakistani Army. Ultimately, however, whether to keep these three categories or not is your call, of course. Let me know what you think. Best wishes. Apandeyhp89 (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the added context. What you've written here sounds like a good case for a list or an brief article. The challenge is that categories need to be DEFINING as in the characteristic could (and often is) mentioned in the lead or is something that meets the criteria under WP:EGRS. Were these people regularly described as being Royals in the British Indian Army? Mason (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, perhaps then these would do better as a list. While these individuals would wear the same uniforms as others if in active service (that wasn't often the case), their commanding officer would know this person was a royal, and the officer would make it sure to neither give hard manual tasks to such personnel nor send them in the heat of battles. More often, the royals to whom I added these categories were given honorary ranks by the British Indian Army for having provided men from their princely states for colonial military expeditions and wars, such as the Waziristan campaigns, World War I and II, etc., and sometimes just as symbols of political expediency. Apandeyhp89 (talk) 09:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Asian families by ancestry[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Matching actual content, subcategories contain only families of Asian ancestry, but not exclusively from Asian countries. Aldij (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, per actual content, as reflected in the names of the subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:European families by ancestry[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Matching actual content, subcategories contain only families of European ancestry, but not exclusively from European countries. Aldij (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, per actual content, as reflected in the names of the subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canne de combat competitions[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only two pages in the full Canne de combat tree, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lenape[edit]

Nominator's rationale For the purposes of consistency and concision, move to simply "Lenape". Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:French mixed martial artists of Black African descent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. There's no other althetic category like this in Black French sportspeople. I don't think that this category passes EGRS. If kept, this category needs to be renamed to either Black French mixed martial artists or French mixed martial artists of African descent, to be consistent with other descent categories. Mason (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Involving former countries or by former country involved[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option A: X involving former countries
Option B: X by former country involved
Intro: This is a preliminary discussion. This issue traces back to 8 years ago, when Wars involving former countries in March 2016 and Battles by former country in December 2016 were created, apparently independent of each other. I've recently initiated a push for adding the word "involved" to the latter type of catnames to avoid confusion with "battles *in* Fooland" (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Battles by country and WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN). There are 2 options to resolve this inconsistency:
Option A rationale: This has my strong preference, as it is shorter and unambiguous. E.g. "Sieges by former country involved" might suggest it means a country that was formerly involved in a siege. Imagine how Fooian and Barian soldiers were besieging city X, but then the Barian army decided to give up and go home, while the Fooians maintained the siege. An editor might think: "Ah, that's a siege formerly involving Bar!", even if Bar is a country that still exists today rather than a former country. That's the kind of confusion we should prevent. A disadvantage is that we'll get a slightly odd tree where "involving former countries" will become children of "by country involved", as is already the case with Category:Wars involving former countries). And it might be silly to rename the parents to something like Category:Wars involving countries, as the vast majority of wars involves countries rather than non-state actors (rebel groups, mercenaries etc.). But that slight inconsistency doesn't weigh up to the clarity and brevity of "former countries". We can decide that this is an important naming convention to be followed (thus falling under WP:C2B in future cases).
Option B rationale: This is the alternative, sticking to the "by country involved" formula that is currently being adopted for cats involving countries that still exist today. (I actually initiated that process myself some days ago before realising it might pose problems for former countries). The main advantage is consistency through the entire tree, something that can fall under WP:C2C in future cases. However, the disadvantages outlined above about it being longer and especially being ambiguous about "countries formerly involved" lead me to conclude this option should not be our preference. I can pretty much guarantee that with ongoing wars, editors are going to miscategorise countries that still exist today as having pulled out of the ongoing war as a "former country involved" (a good reason why that category in particular is already named "wars involving former countries" instead, preventing exactly this kind of confusion from happening, even if the creator might not have had that conscious intention when picking a catname). But I'm putting it up for consideration by the community, because it is a serious alternative.
PS: I haven't tagged any categories yet. I prefer to have this preliminary discussion first before tagging the relevant categories with a proposed new name, otherwise I would have to be tagging all of them both ways, and that's not very helpful for everyone's understanding. When this discussion has a clear result for A or B, I'll tag the relevant categories accordingly and ping all participants for a follow-up to confirm. NLeeuw (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sexual-related controversies in film[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Purge of articles about individual films per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Subcategories of Category:Film controversies by country and other such discussions on that day's page. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sex scandals in French cinema[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I would say that this needs to be purged of individual films (and people, who are for some reason in this category) à la Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Subcategories of Category:Film controversies by country, but that would leave this as a single-member category (containing Roman Polanski sexual abuse case). Delete, and manually add Roman Polanski sexual abuse case to Category:Sexual-related controversies in film. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. I initially read this as "Sex scandals in French cinemas." But that's a very different scope. I'm kind of disappointed now... NLeeuw (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 21[edit]

Newspapers published in Western Australia by region[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I'm proposing renaming these categories for consistency with the following existing categories:
There are also four other regions (the Gascoyne, Great Southern, Kimberley and Perth metropolitan regions) without categories at present, but I plan to work on articles for as many of Australia's newspapers as I can so I expect these categories to be necessary at some point. The only reason for this nomination is for consistency amongst sub-category names, so I wouldn't be opposed to another naming scheme. This one just makes the most sense to me. Adam Black talk • contributions 16:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Western Australia notified of this discussion. Adam Black talk • contributions 21:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have now created the categories for the remaining three Western Australian regions,
Therefore six of the ten subcategories now follow the same naming scheme. I would also like to add another category to this nomination:
The rationale is the same as for the original proposal. Adam Black talk • contributions 07:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Adam Black t • c 23:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all to Category:Newspapers published in Western Australia, apart from Perth there is no reason for diffusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are currently 381 Western Australian newspapers listed on Trove alone. Not all of them have articles, and not all of them will be notable enough for their own articles, but I believe a significant portion will be. You haven't really given a rationale for why these categories should all be merged or why Perth should be a standout, just "there is no reason for diffusion". I think it helps readers navigate what could become quite a large category. Adam Black t • c 12:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think Perth should be a standout. My point is that only if there would be as much content in every category as in Perth's category it would be worthwhile to diffuse. But that is not the case. The current microcategories are merely a hindrance for easy navigation between related articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • strong objection to most of this discussions assumptions. As creator of the microcategories in discussion here, they were created in the presumption that the project of the National Library and ALIA to support each state library system to improve content about Australian newspapers state by state to help create content for material in Trove would be something that would be expanded upon regularly. The result in other states is highly variable in quality and organisation - in the Western Australian content there was a library employee who edited on WA content, and there was every hope that there would be followed on editing for more newspapers for each region than is being discussed here. The subsequent lack of followon editing is a case throughout wikipedia, this is not an orphan. I believe how sensible Adam might think he is in wanting to qualify the regional title, or Marco in being a category worker extraordinaire (and that should be noted is much appreciated ), the lack of background always astounds me here at CFD. I think that for the purposes of what the original project had intended, will be made much more of a hell of a mess and difficult to navigate the regional distinctions of western australian geographical range, and how it also affects understanding of the original reasons for the regional separation. As a consequence, I strongly object to reducing to one category, as it interferes with a project that would have increased valid items for each subcategory. As for the renaming - it is paradoxical, in view of many australian places have qualifier state names, whereas here there is no need.JarrahTree 01:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Admitted Soviet spies[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I don't think that this intersection between being admitted as a spie and being a soviet spie is defining. And if it is, then we probably need to rename this category to reflect that many of these people were not soviet nationals, but Category:Spies for the Soviet Union Mason (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in the Andean states[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Per deletion of Andean states * Pppery * it has begun... 23:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Film controversies in France[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Not viable as a category after it was purged as a result of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 3#Subcategories of Category:Film controversies by country: only two subcategories and zero articles. Merging is not needed imo; both subcategories are already in the category trees they need to be in. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User und[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Nonsensical. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:East Midlands franchaise[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Has a typo. Correct category Category:East Midlands franchise has already been created so cannot be renamed, therefore delete. DankJae 21:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films directed by David S. F. Wilson[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization: This is a category for films directed by someone who has either never had or no longer has a Wikipedia article about them. It has only one entry and a search for additional articles that meet the criteria of this category turned up no results. Vegantics (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles in Île-de-France[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. Recent precedents have favoured (up)merging to "Military history of X", but such a category does not yet exist for Île-de-France, so we might as well rename this one. NLeeuw (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping @Marcocapelle: what do you think? NLeeuw (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sugar[edit]

Nominator's rationale: They are too similar MRTFR55 (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2024 Varzaqan helicopter crash[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Has one article only; delete, with no objections to recreation if there is more on the matter. I'm not sure about the victims category is necessary either because other victim of aviation categories are often major air disasters. I would not considered this one on that scale. Would like to hear the opinions of others on it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, without objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available. This is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. I think that this category isn't helpful with only one page and a category of the victims. This just adds an extra click, which if anything could negatively impact navigation (rather than just being unhelpful). Mason (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now without prejudice. NLeeuw (talk) 03:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Manager of the Year Award winners[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. Will check in with WP:Baseball first about categories. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename per WP:C2D; article is Major League Baseball Manager of the Year Award. I tried to change it via speedy rename but, for whatever reason, it changed the name of the parent category instead. I tried again but it still hasn't changed. Hence why I'm trying it through full Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Stakhanov, Ukraine[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Due to the name of the main article, Kadiivka. Yuriy Kvach (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Toll roads in Washington, D.C.[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary layer for navigation. Let'srun (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete I guess. Having a roads category with a bridges subcategory would be rather odd. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Victims of helicopter accidents or incidents in Iran[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 03:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redudant category layer. Upmerge for now. I looked and was unable to find any other victims of helicopter crashes in Iran Mason (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I finally found another one! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albert_Lamorisse&oldid=1224893436 Mason (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Migrant to the Ottoman Empire people from British India[edit]

Nominator's rationale: option A: merge, three categories for only one article is not helpful for navigation. Option B:delete, the article is already in Category:Emigrants from British India and Category:Immigrants to the Ottoman Empire which seems to suffice. For a citizen of the Ottoman Empire it is irrelevant which specific Indian ethnicities all of his ancestors had. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support either merge or delete, because these categories are very much not helpful for navigation.Mason (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which option?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Concert tours of Europe by South Korean artists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristics of event × continent × nationality ×occupation against the guidance of WP:PERFCAT. This is an attempt to circumvent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of K-pop concerts held outside Asia, see WT:KO#List of K-pop concerts held outside Asia. ✗plicit 00:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New South Wales rugby union team players[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The two are covering the same team and should be merged. Especially as New South Wales rugby union team redirects to the Waratahs. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nomination. This was the same side. Where is the dividing line drawn? If 1995, as I suspect, that is entirely arbitrary, there was Super 10 (rugby union) and Super 6 Rugby which were predecessor competitions run on exactly the same lines as early Super Rugby. All players at the Waratahs now, as pre-95, have a theoretical club side in the Shute Shield they can play for when not selected. Skeene88 (talk) 08:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Perhaps there's a better way, but this was an attempt on my part to differentiate between the professional Super Rugby era iteration of the team and the historical side. This would be in the same way rugby league has Category:New South Wales Rugby League State of Origin players as a subcat of Category:New South Wales rugby league team players (though both are captured in the one article). Maybe an option would be to move Category:New South Wales Waratahs players to Category:New South Wales Waratahs (Super Rugby) players? Jevansen (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This seems to be a split for players who played pre-professionalism for New South Wales, and then who played Super Rugby for the Waratahs. While the naming probably isn't perfect, I see the split as being suitable to differentiate between those who played the the New South Wales region, and those who played for the team. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its still the same team @Rugbyfan22: because it seems the Waratah's name was adopted in the 1920's. Just because they turned pro, doesn't mean they stopped being the same side. Rugby was not invented in 1995, the lineage is the same and should be maintained. This is essentially a duplicate category. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and listify, I imagine readers would be interested in the players of the pre-1995 era so that seems the easiest way (maybe with a minimum appearance threshold if stats are adequately held to facilitate that?); for the Category, does seem to be a continuous entity so only one cat needed. Crowsus (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Analysts of Ayodhya dispute[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Alternative name sounds more consistent with other categories in Scholars and academics by subject Mason (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as the page creator. I have no objection. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the spirit of WP:PERFCAT, this is just one of many topics that the subjects in this category were involved. No objection to listification. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:56, 13 May 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, Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: I was on the fence between deletion and renaming when I made the nom. My hope was that other folks who have strong opinions/knowledge. Mason (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños faculty[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This is an institute Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños within Hunter college. This category is too small to be helpful with navigation right now. Mason (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the upper-level category of City University of New York faculty is for a system of colleges and institutes, and the articles in it should be diffused into the appropriate subcats for each of the different colleges within the system in the same way as categories are done for other university systems. Ideally, all of the articles in the CUNY faculty cat would be diffused into subcats of the different colleges or institutes. Additionally, from what I understand, the centro is housed at Hunter College, but is a separate institute within the CUNY system. Semper Fi FieldMarine (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. No objection to diffusion as such, as long as it colleges are big enough to contain lots of articles, but that does not seem to be the case here. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 20[edit]

Category:WikiProject Good articles participants[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Defunct WikiProject. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of MyrtaBeautyQueen[edit]

Nominator's rationale: An older sockmaster was discovered after this category was created. It is helpful to have all the socks in one category for understanding and analyzing long-term abuse. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Old Believer churches in Latvia[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Very small categories with 1 and 2 members respectively. – Fayenatic London 21:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21th-century disestablishments in the Central African Republic[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy rename. – Fayenatic London 12:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: typo in name, should be 21st-century, not 21th Bookworm-ce (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per WP:C2A, this could have been listed at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, as a category creator, I acknowledge my mistake in writing the name. If I were you, I would rename it immediately Faldi00 (talk) 08:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Militia in the United States[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Older duplicate of Category:Militia of the United States. The replacement to redirect was reverted for the sake of discussion Solidest (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete, the latter because I am not sure if the target is right for the only article. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Finding Nemo characters[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only contains one article. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Black Parade (rock opera)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: To match with The Black Parade. The Black Parade (rock opera) doesn't even exist currently as a redirect, and I don't particularly see why it would need to. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom The Sharpest Lives (contribs) 15:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Wall (rock opera)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: To match with The Wall. I don't see why the disambiguation would be necessary. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nom The Sharpest Lives (contribs) 15:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decades in Punjab[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, only one article in each of these categories, that is not helpful for navigation. Besides Punjab is divided between India and Pakistan since 1947, so the 1950s and 1960s categories should not exist anyway. Since the content of these categories is about Punjabi film which is primarily about film in India, I have added East Punjab and Punjab, India as targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Technically all G13 eligible AfC submissions are candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions. I see little reason to isolate this category since the latter category will give a larger list for users to find a draft and update so it does not meet G13. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 15:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A merge closure was overturned per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 4.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 16:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose These are two categories for two very specific and different use cases. The Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions tracks not only drafts that are 6 months of inactivity, but also 5 months of inactivity. This category is specifically for AfC reviewers and other editors to rescue these drafts, if the topic is notable or has turned notable, before the drafts hit the guillotine block at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions, which is an outright CSD category that is meant for draft of 6 months of inactivity and above. In my experience, the Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions category has been used by well-meaning editors, and if there are dummy edits made nefariously, these editors should be surfaced at an appropriate forum. Merging the categories will not resolve the behavioural issue, they will just monitor the CSD category more rigorously to make the dummy edits before an admin can action on it. – robertsky (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is meant to contain drafts of more than 5 months old then the category name is obviously not clear enough. The category is currently empty, so is anyone actively using it? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a bit of a misnomer to say that because it is empty no one is "actively using it"; the category is automatically populated based on the age of the draft; if there are no drafts that are old enough then it will be empty (hence the {{empty category}} tag). Given that we have (literally) hundreds of drafts submitted every day, and only a fraction of those are ever worked on past their initial decline, I would say that someone is keeping an eye on it to make sure that drafts worth keeping are saved, and drafts worth nuking are then G13'd. Primefac (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category is probably never populated. Note that quarry:query/25817 yields 115 drafts as of now, while this is supposed to replicate the category content. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That quarry was last run in 2018... Primefac (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It also, as of about thirty seconds ago, has three pages in it. Primefac (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Just so I don't have to keep updating this page, it has 0 pages as of the time of last refresh. Primefac (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertsky: I believe you are thinking of Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions (5-6 months), which is a different category from this one (6+ months). See Template:AfC submission/draft (lines 22-23) or the description on each category's page. SilverLocust 💬 07:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverLocust thanks for clarification. I was/am still recovering from effects of a flu, after having travelled for half the month for various conferences. In this case, I would question if there is indeed a need to have two separate categories for the same purpose. – robertsky (talk) 09:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robertsky, the intention is to have a category for pages that are eligible for G13, and a category for pages that have been nominated for deletion under G13. I've asked Liz and Explicit to comment since they've been deleting G13 pages straight out of this category, which might give a better indication of how best we could utilise it if it's kept. Primefac (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I have notified Liz and Explicit about this discussion, since they seem to be patrolling it and directly deleting pages from it. Primefac (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed. While automatic (i.e. bot) tagging of eligible drafts has been approved in the past, populating this category instead of directly feeding a page into the G13 cat itself means that there is one more set of checks that users can do before a page is formally nominated for deletion. Primefac (talk) 15:10, 19 May 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) 02:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shootings in Virginia[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Virginia is the only U.S. State with a separate category for non-mass shootings. Of its 5 articles, 3 are in the "Mass shootings in Virginia" category, while the remaining 2 are in the "Crimes in Virginia" category. 100.7.34.111 (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 19[edit]

Category:Canadian people by religion and century[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one and two subcategories respectively (of which one subcategory overlaps). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:13th-century Baduspanid rulers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I don't think we need to diffuse Bavand or Baduspanid dynasty by century. Instead I think we should repurpose it to be a nationality category. Mason (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Youth activists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I think we should just merge these two categories, they're both extremely similar with the defining feature being that the activist is notable for being young. Mason (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nepali language movement activists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories. Rervse merge also fine by me Mason (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not exactly overlapping, one is a category of Indian people, the other of Nepalese people. The former is related to the Nepali language movement which was a movement specifically in India. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Italian expatriates in the Crusader states[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There's no main category, so I think this child category should be repurposed to cover all expatriates, not just those from italy Mason (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Urdu critics[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between language spoken and occupation. This category should be split into Indian critics‎ and Pakistani critics. Mason (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People educated at Coláiste an Phiarsaigh[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unneeded category - Only 2 entries which I've added to the school article, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: a list on a single article is no reason to reject a category accomplishing the same task in a different area of the site. Plus, there are now twice as many entries as there were at time of proposal. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean to delete, attandence of a particular secondary school is not a very defining characteristic of an individual person. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my reply to Peter James here, I guess this can be withdrawn although for the record I'm not happy about it nor do I see a point in having duplicate information... But if EN wants duplicate information for the sake of having duplicate information then who am I to get in the way of that. –Davey2010Talk 10:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Categories are not superseded by lists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People educated at De La Salle College Dundalk[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Superseded by the same list at De La Salle College Dundalk#Notable alumni, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: a list on a single article is no reason to reject a category accomplishing the same task in a different area of the site. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean to delete, attandence of a particular secondary school is not a very defining characteristic of an individual person. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my reply to Peter James here, I guess this can be withdrawn although for the record I'm not happy about it nor do I see a point in having duplicate information... But if EN wants duplicate information for the sake of having duplicate information then who am I to get in the way of that. –Davey2010Talk 10:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Categories are not superseded by lists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People educated at Alcester Grammar School[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Superseded by the list at Alcester Grammar School#Notable alumni, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: a list on a single article is no reason to reject a category accomplishing the same task in a different area of the site. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we want duplicating information though ?, Why do we need an under-populated category when a list within an article does the same job ?, Also do you have any sort of link that explicitly states duplicating information is fine because if you do I'd happily close this. –Davey2010Talk 00:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess this is one of those things I will never understand, How is a duplicate category "complimentary" when it's literally a duplicate??, Why do we need 2 things of the same thing ?, what is achieved or what is the end goal in having 2 of the same thing ?, I don't get it I truly don't.
Nonetheless Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates are not considered duplicative renders my whole arguement moot so I guess my only option here is to withdraw, Thank you for providing that guideline it's greatly appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 10:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Categories are not superseded by lists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Bahawalpur District[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, only one article in the category, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Continental League contributors[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No need for parent category, see below. Once the parent category Category:Continental League is deleted, there is no place for this category to be and there is no existing scheme of Category:Contributors by baseball league. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:03, 1 May 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) 03:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what a contributor is in terms of a league so merging to a tree which exists makes sense to me.--User:Namiba 04:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. @Pppery, @Smasongarrison, basically these people were baseball executives who were pushing for the formation of the Continental League. But I don't think one can be considered a contributor to something that never existed. The more appropriate term would be "advocators", IMO. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Omnis. Thanks! I'm so glad that Omnis knows her baseball :) Mason (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge That makes sense to me. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Continental League[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Too little content, all adequately interlinked. See also second proposal above. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:02, 1 May 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) 03:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Rawalpindi District[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory and one article. No other districts in Punjab but Bahawalpur (see further above) have a category like this. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military history of Punjab, Pakistan[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Iranian Arab families[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian families by ethnic or national origin[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename similar to Category:Families by ancestry and sibling categories therein. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom Mason (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. @Smasongarrison surely you meant "Rename"? NLeeuw (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep meant rename! thanks for catching that Mason (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Colonial United States (Mexican)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, it is an odd category name, ignoring the fact that the colonial era in Mexico (hence in these regions) had ended in 1821, and there does not seem to be much reason to keep it separate from the target. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American gangsters of Sicilian descent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Merge per previous precedent Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean to support, while in Italy the Sicilian Mafia is quite distinct, I think that is not so much the case in the United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Metropolis albums[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Not sure what the best title for this would be so open for other alternatives. This is obviously not albums about Metropolis nor about Metropolis (1927 film), but is related to albums by Janelle Monáe which form some kind of series (and currently has no article and no redirect as far as I can tell). Gonnym (talk) 09:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stryper tribute albums[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Sole entry is non-notable and now a redirect, so there's no point in a separate category. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scottish child businesspeople[edit]

Nominator's rationale: 3x upmerge for now. This category only has one person in it, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games using procedural generation[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Games with randomly-generated maps is nothing special, it's not even that hard to add this into your game. Almost every RTS, turn-based strategy, city-builder, and open-world survival game has had it. And some of haven't even been listed. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Don't see a cohesive argument for why this category and its accompanying list are non-defining. Procedural generation is not so common as to be totally ubiquitous in games. Also, you probably should have nominated the list for deletion before the category if you really think so. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean oppose per Zxcvbnm because there is a main article: List of games using procedural generation (maybe it needs to add the word "video" in the title, but that's a detail). It's difficult to justify deleting the category while keeping the list. Unless there are definitional or semantic issues that require WP:V and thus listification of the whole category, I think we should keep it. NLeeuw (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK never mindQuantumFoam66 (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, by the way, I made another CtF submission at Category:First-person video games, which you may actually agree on. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Savoyards in Thirteenth Century England[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category needs to be renamed to match the naming conventions of other categories. I'm not married to the rename but it's the best I could come up with that matches the vibes of the category and the main page Savoyard knights in the service of Edward I Mason (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fanny (band)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Too little content: only two cats and two articles (and the two cats only have 4 or 6 articles themselves). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former universities and colleges of Jesuits[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The current name is not only awkward and not parallel to the name of the related category for current Jesuit institutions ("Jesuit universities and colleges") but its meaning is also unclear. ElKevbo (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone has a (legitimate) concern that "Former Jesuit" is also ambiguous - does it mean "a university or college that was once a Jesuit institution but is no longer a Jesuit institution" or "a Jesuit university or college that is now closed" ? - then "Formerly Jesuit universities and colleges" would resolve that ambiguity. The category does currently include institutions in both of those situations so this may be important. ElKevbo (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Can you please say more about "the distinction between current and former Jesuit is also not enormously important." In my mind, it's a very important distinction as it indicates a very important shift in the institution's mission, organization, and support. ElKevbo (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an entirely different subject and you're welcome to establish that category if you feel strongly about it but it doesn't seem terribly relevant to the discussion at hand. And I completely disagree that "the category is primarily useful to learn about the history of the Jesuits" as its primary use is to identify colleges and universities who are identified with that particular religious order. It's less about the history of that order and more about the intended function and role of these colleges and universities.
"Every university or college will eventually be closed or taken over" doesn't seem like a very helpful or productive perspective at all. Every religion will eventually fade into disuse or change until it's unrecognizable. The sun will eventually explore destroying all life and structure on the planet. The universe will eventually fade into heat death. None of that is very useful when considering what we should or should not do here and now in this encyclopedia. ElKevbo (talk) 15:50, 12 May 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) 01:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Carib people[edit]

Nominator's rationale The term "Carib" is ambiguous as it can be used to refer to either the Kalinago (Island Caribs) or the Kalina (Mainland Caribs). Despite both being commonly called "Caribs", the Kalinago and the Kalina are different peoples with different languages and cultures. There isn't a single "Carib" group encompassing both the Kalina and Kalinago. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is clear, but is deletion the best solution? What about splitting to Kalinago and Kalina? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or split?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, at second glance these categories are so lightly populated that splitting them does not make a lot of sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cartoonists by country templates[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only contains 1 template which is already within Category:Comics creator navigational boxes. – Fayenatic London 21:00, 3 May 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) 19:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same question: delete or rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Uyghur women poets[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between type of writer, ethnicity, and gender. There's not a Uyghur women category or women poets by ethnicity. Mason (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Member municipalities of the Greater Vancouver Regional District[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The regional district has gone by the "Metro Vancouver" title for several years now. RedBlueGreen93 06:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older discussions[edit]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions&oldid=1202523150"