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 15:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 86 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]

  • @Smasongarrison: unfortunately the entire 19th-century architecture by country tree is by 21st-century countries and so are the subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    gotcha! Move to full? Mason (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Smasongarrison: moving it to full will be a brave act. Be ready for opposition, other editors will argue that buildings are currently in Turkey. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ugh, I don't have the bandwidth for that right now. I'm fine with this becoming stale. Mason (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]

On hold pending other discussion[edit]

  • None currently

Moved to full discussion[edit]

  • 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 23[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

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]

Category:Categories without CatAutoTOC and friends[edit]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]
  • Purge per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge per nom. Also, shouldn't it become noun-related, i.e. sex-related or sexuality-related? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 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]

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]

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]


May 18[edit]

Category:Anglo-Dutch Wars orders of battle[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one page in here, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 23:01, 18 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]

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]
  • 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]

Category:Jewish prisoners and detainees[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I don't think that the intersection of being jewish and a prisoners and detainees is defining under WP:EGRS. Do we have categories for Christian gulag detainees? I also think that Jews who died in prison custody in not a defining intersection between location of death and ethnicity. Mason (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hope I don't derail the entire discussion by bringing up the Holocaust, but... being Jewish as a prisoner is perhaps one of the most defining identity aspects in the 20th century. Just saying... The religious aspect does not appear to be as important as the "ethnic" or "cultural" aspects of Jewishness, so the comparison with Christian prisoners only goes so far. NLeeuw (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I agree with you that the Holocaust is very much defining at this intersection; however, none of the other intersection at this category meet that criteria. Also notably, Holocaust victims/survivors was not in the category, when I stumbled upon it, which I think implicitly might indicate that the Holocaust wasn't what the category maker had in mind.Mason (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point, I did wonder why there were no Jewish concentration camp inmates in this category. We do have Category:Prisoners and detainees by nationality, but not Category:Prisoners and detainees by ethnicity (nor indeed Category:Prisoners and detainees by religion, deleted in 2020), where I would expect this category. There appears to be zero overlap with Category:Israeli prisoners and detainees; all these people were imprisoned in Europe (usually Russia or the Soviet Union), after which some emigrated to Israel. Only one appears to be a Holocaust survivor, namely Fania Fénelon. The rest was never arrested just for being Jewish, but always for some sort of political activity that may or may not have something to do with Judaism. Soo... Support per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 06:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ukrainian-Jewish emigrants to the United Kingdom[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between being a Ukrainian emigrant to the United Kingdom, Being a Jewish emigrant to the United Kingdom, and being Ukrainian-Jewish. Mason (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Freely licensed images of non-free subject[edit]

Nominator's rationale: "Subject" should be plural. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objections, as the concern is based on English usage. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per WP:C2B WP:PLURALCAT. NLeeuw (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mountaineering organizations[edit]

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]

Category:Mountaineering film directors[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There are several major 'climbing' directors (e.g. Jimmy Chin) that would fit in here but the category needs to be renamed (no need for two separate categories as there is a lot of overlap in the film sector). Aszx5000 (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works about mountaineering[edit]

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]

Category:Mountaineering films[edit]

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]

Category:Egyptian films by year[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Misconceived category scheme without precedent or siblings. Despite the name of the parent category here, the contents are not actually "by year" -- Wikipedia does not categorize films for the intersection of country with individual year of release anyway, so that wouldn't even be supportable. Instead, what's actually here is two subcategories for Egyptian films by century -- but that's not a thing we do either, because that's far too wide a classification to be useful when it comes to film, and no other country has anything like this.
And for added bonus, by far the majority of Egyptian films haven't even actually been filed under here at all: Category:Egyptian films by genre has around 500 films under it, while this has just 37.
We can and do cross-categorize films on the intersection of country with decade, so no prejudice against the creation of that scheme here if desired, but by-century is too broad to be a useful grouping when it comes to films.
The Category:Lists of Egyptian films by year subcategory is fine, but is already in Category:Lists of Egyptian films, so no replacement of this is needed. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted on the grounds that the second and third nominated categories do have siblings for other countries within e.g. Category:20th-century films. – Fayenatic London 14:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the request was on grounds that are not actually applicable. While it is true that some other countries do have "films by century" categories, no other country has them to contain individual films as these do — where they do exist, they exist exclusively as container-only parents for the by-decade categories that Egypt doesn't have, and no other country has individual films being directly catted "by century" at all. So, again, if somebody is willing to buckle down and create by decade categories for Egypt, then these could be kept as parents for those by decade categories — but until by decade categories do exist, these do not need to exist with individual films filed directly in them, because that just isn't how films are categorized. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly it appears that decade categories for Egyptian films can be sufficiently well populated for the 1950s onwards. If there are very few for earlier decades e.g. Gawhara in 1940s, why should those pages not be categorised directly in C20 Egyptian films? Compare Category:20th-century business films which has decade subcats for 1920s onwards, but holds The Love of Hetty Raimond (1917) directly. – Fayenatic London 14:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Love of Hetty Raymond doesn't actually contain any explanation of how it's a "business film" anyway — so it's not even clear that the category was justified there either, and I've had to remove it as unsourced and unexplained. So there are no other siblings left in Category:20th-century films that have any articles directly in them at all — they're all exclusively "decade subcategories only", and none of them contain even one film that isn't in a decade subcategory.
        And at any rate, I explicitly said that I was willing to withdraw this if somebody was willing to actually buckle down and create by-decade categories for Egypt — but they have to exist before they can be filed anywhere, so their potential to exist in the future is not a reason to keep provisional parent categories for them in advance of anybody actually being bothered to create them.
        Also, as I already noted above, there are several hundred other Egyptian films that haven't been filed in this scheme at all, so just because there aren't many 1940s Egyptian films here doesn't prove that we don't have others. I just did an AWB category-compare check of all Egyptian films against all 1940s films, and there are actually 35 Egyptian films under both trees, which is absolutely enough to support a 1940s category too. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial merge of the first to Category:Egyptian cinema by year. Keep the century categories which I have sub-catted by decade. When recategorising pages, I found some already in e.g. Category:1990s Arabic-language films. Should 1990s Egyptian be a diffusing sub-cat of 1990s Arabic-language? Or even if not sub-catted, should they be removed on the pattern of the rule stated at Category:Songs in English? – Fayenatic London 08:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sportspeople who died in wars[edit]

Nominator's rationale: A non-defining intersection of unrelated characteristics. User:Namiba 15:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I do think that the Olympians category could make an interesting list, but the category itself isn't defining at the intersection, unless the sportperson died while they were actively participating in the sport. Mason (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What should we do about Category:Lists of sportspeople who died in wars? AHI-3000 (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not seem defining. I am also dubious about all the contents of Category:Lists of sportspeople who died in wars for similar reasons. However, the articles should be dealt with there before messing with the category. This is not a "but what about this one" situation where just because another bad category exists, this one can be kept. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I only made this category because both of the 2 preexisting subcategories were similar enough to each other. AHI-3000 (talk) 01:12, 19 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]

Category:Deuteronomistic history[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The category explanation is not universally accepted, see the last paragraph of the section Deuteronomistic history. If not merged, rename to Category:Former Prophets as a more useful title – see the section Former Prophets in the article Nevi'im. – Fayenatic London 11:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree that Deuteronomist does not belong. That article is about these books. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but the books aren't about the Deuteronomist. Moreover, it's in the name: the Book of Deuteronomy itself is not part of the Nevi'im but the Torah / Pentateuch. I think we agreed previously that we shouldn't be mixing up textual criticism with traditional Jewish and Christian divisions of the Bible; this is a logical follow-up of that agreement. NLeeuw (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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

Nominator's rationale: rename per parent categories Category:Musicians by ethnicity and Category:Canadian people by ethnicity. With the exception of the Asian subcategory this is about people's own ethnicity, not about their ancestors' nationality. The Asian subcategory may be moved directly under Category:Canadian musicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Executed French people[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, primarily because this is diffusion by defunct administrative divisions (defunct since 2015), and secondarily because diffusion by administrative division leads to a trivial intersection. Manually merge insofar the articles aren't already in one of the other subcategories e.g. Category:French people executed by Nazi Germany. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. There's really no need to diffuse by location. Century and crime would be more useful for diffusion Mason (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Drakengard[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There seems to be enough articles for a split, with 11 going to Nier and 7 going to Drakengard. Bringing to CFD as I am uncertain in this split, and with Nier not having a series article yet. Category:Nier would also likely be a subcategory of Category:Drakengard. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Drakengard still concerns both series and is solely titled "Drakengard". If it is split off into a Nier series article I'd have no qualms with this, but it's putting the cart before the horse. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think a series article needs to be created before a category is created. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:29, 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) 01:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Zxcvbnm. As is, the Drakengard article covers both the Drakengard and Nier as part of the same series, and makes no implication that they should be separate. I am sure there is enough coverage that one could make a separate Nier article, but that none exists at this point suggests to me that it isn't necessary, or that it is better to keep them together. Regardless of the reason, the categories should follow suit. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 17[edit]

Category:Major League Baseball Executive Vice Presidents for Baseball Operations[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per WP:NONDEF; this isn't a high level front office position like general manager or president of baseball operations. Its also not a high level position like commissioner of baseball if we're talking about central office. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Let'srun (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Possible physical damages through anal sex[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Please see WP:OCASSOC. The medical conditions included in this category have a variety of causes; their possible association with anal sex is not a defining characteristic. (I was alerted to this questionable category by a note on my talk page.) gnu57 23:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crystal City, Arlington, Virginia[edit]

Category:Lexington Avenue explosion[edit]

Nominator's rationale: All of the articles are sufficiently interlinked and the category contains just 3 articles. User:Namiba 20:19, 17 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]

Category:20th-century Canadian people by religion[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:12, 17 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]

Category:American Splendor artists[edit]

Convert Category:American Splendor artists to article American Splendor
Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme of Category:Artists by comic title or some such and this is analogous to WP:PERFCAT. Just make sure they are all listed (with citations) at the article on the comic. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that this is a useful category as it includes people not usually associated with their artwork, such as Alan Moore and Joyce Brabner. American Splendor was a unique title in many ways, given it was written by a single person but with dozens of different artists; it seems fitting that it merits a relatively unique category.
As a compromise, what if the category was just converted to "Category: American Splendor", not specifying artists? stoshmaster (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If artists are purged the category will become empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant was convert this category simply to "American Splendor" and it will house all things related to American Splendor, including the writers, artists, the film, and all related books (if they have separate articles) stoshmaster (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a defining characteristic of the subjects in this category. Moving this to article space is a good compromise between instant deletion and keeping. As a preliminary measure the category content may be copied to Talk:American Splendor before the category is deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I again propose that this category be rethought/renamed to Category:American Splendor where it will encompass all things related to American Splendor, including the writers, artists, the film, and all related books (if they have separate articles) -- stoshmaster (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds much like WP:OCASSOC and, again, it would not solve the problem at hand. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC) (added after relisting)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional toothed whales[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only one article and it is not about a fictional character but about a literary work. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the name of the work is the fictional character (so the character should be tagged, not the work), a single-entry category is not helpful. Tag the character article with the parent category, remove the tag from the work article, and remove this category. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jat politicians from Rajasthan[edit]

Nominator's rationale: As per long standing consensus here, biographies of living people cannot be categorised by caste.Ratnahastin (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish delicatessens in Oregon[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent category; only has one category layer. No need to upmerge to Category:Delicatessens in Oregon as its already in Category:Delicatessens in Portland, Oregon. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nuclear technology companies of Argentina[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only one page in the category FightBrightTigh (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Engineering companies of Algeria[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only one page in the category FightBrightTigh (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Engineering companies of Israel[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only one page in the category. FightBrightTigh (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:East German people by ethnic or national origin[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory which is already part of Category:Immigrants to East Germany. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Northern Mariana Islands people by ethnic or national origin[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename for consistency. Both parent and child categories are "by descent". Marcocapelle (talk) 08:57, 17 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]

Category:Montana articles lacking sources[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The category is not connected to a template so not helpful as maintenance category. If kept should either have a template created, or be tied to Template:WikiProject Montana. Gonnym (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cricket lists incorrectly assessed as articles[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I can't find this category used by Template:WikiProject Cricket. This was probably used by a previous version of the code or a now deleted sub-template and is no longer used. Gonnym (talk) 07:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Middle Eastern people by ethnic or national origin[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 the Middle East. They are all just container categories. Note: Category:People of Middle Eastern descent is the opposite; I do not propose to delete it! Aldij (talk) 07:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Normally I would have said, disperse between Asian and African, but I believe that the subcategories are already in these trees. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Abolish Self Government Coalition politicians[edit]

Nominator's rationale: As per WP:SMALLCAT LibStar (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is not helpful for navigation. (Note that WP:SMALLCAT is defunct because it contained a number of too subjective clauses.) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct World TeamTennis teams[edit]

Nominator's rationale: 1.) we don't categorize by current status and 2.) the league is defunct, so all teams are defunct. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, I do not know about (1) but (2) alone is an obvious enough reason for merging. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We do actually categorize sports teams by current status. However, while the league is not officially defunct, it might as well be since there hasn't been an update since 2022 on its functions. Hence merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Premier League (cricket) sub-categories[edit]

Nominator's rationale: In order to match the Parent article / category's naming pattern. Vestrian24Bio (U • T • A • C • S) 04:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merged requests Vestrian24Bio (U • T • A • C • S) 04:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cask strength[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category is really not helpful for navigation. I tried to find a 2nd parent category, and it made it clear to me that we really don't need a category for Cask strength Mason (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1940 Michigan-Ontario Collegiate Conference football season[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Category lacks subjects Let'srun (talk) 01:55, 17 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]

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]

Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia[edit]

Nominator's rationale: no accurate reliable sources to verify such a classification, even the category descroption says "This category is not necessarily indicative of total loss of population, traditions, language or culture - each specific case may have particular individual contexts" that its unable to be clearerly define or even confirm that the launguage, culture, people, knowledge, country is actually extinct Wikipedia should not be categorising as such. Gnangarra 13:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnangarra The category description can be changed. If articles can use past tense words like "were" and "was" in reference to a tribe, I'm not seeing why the word "extinct" is out of question. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is the issue of using the "tribes" to decsribe Indigenous Countries, Cultures and People in Australia is inaccurate at best racist at worst. The term itself implies a lot of colonial misinformation and a distinct lack of understanding of Indigenous Cutlures in Australia. The use of past tense in words like were or was is also not an indicator of the Indigenous Countries, cultures, languages or peoples continuation. Very specifically by calling a Country extinct that frees the restriction of cultural protocols applying when working on with Indugenous Cultural materials. All countries are still in existance and are represented through Land Councils who manage everything from protocols on entering a country, to land rights. My reasoning is not playing words games its saying that the assumption of being extinct is a misnomer, even in languages and cultures where a recent Language conference in Queensland a professor was luaghed off stage when he stated that a language was extinct yet multiple people stood up and spoke the language. Without rocksolid gold plate sources published within the last 4 years the label of extinct is a false narrative derived from the recent history wars, and anti landrights campaigners. The other issue we have is the Australian Bureau of Statistics problematic collection of reliable data as it records just one language spoken not all In the context of the Census, 'Indigenous' or 'First Nations' results are defined by respondents who have answered that they are of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander background. There are over 230 Australian Indigenous Languages that the Census records which is less than the actual number of Indigenous languages.[1]. Gnangarra 09:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the use of "tribe" isn't my decision. It is used for many articles about Aboriginal Australian groups, so that seems to perhaps be a wider issue worth fixing. What is the continuation of a group like the Toogee? What is the relevant land council? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tribe is not used in Australia, the poor use of terms in Wikipedia articles is one of the many barriers people working with Indigenous cultures struggle to address as shows Wikipedia in a bad light and not respectful of the culture. Basically ticks all the racists, Inforwar, challenge faced out on the street its up to us to lift our standards. Gnangarra 12:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it is questionable if ethnic groups become extinct at all. A language may become extinct for sure, but ethnic groups mostly dissolve in other ethnic groups. - But this comment applies to the whole tree of Category:Extinct ethnic groups. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle Aren't we talking about cultural extinction? Are you defining extinction as the literal death of all group members without any descendants? That seems like an unorthodox interpretation. The Susquehannock people are extinct as a tribe, despite having some descendants in the Seneca-Cayuga Nation. I don't see any contradiction here. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Frustratingly, the term "extinct" seems to be used somewhat inconsistently for both cultural extinction and the death of all group members (at least, from a google search). Is there a better term we could use to distinguish the two? Category:Extinct ethnic groups is currently a subcategory under Category:Human extinction which implies the latter, so perhaps it should be renamed and/or categorized differently if most of the members are groups that are only culturally extinct. Psychastes (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seneca-Cayuga Nation is not an Indigenous Country in Australia, you are making comparisons that are not like for like. Gnangarra 09:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And? I'm addressing Marcocapelle's statement about the broader category tree. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If not an outright deletion then certainly a renaming to be more clear would seem to be a good idea.★Trekker (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What would you propose and why? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Genocide happens. Wishful thinking doesn't change that. "Extinct" is a harsh and ugly word to apply to people; it's natural to recoil in disgust at the idea. It may be very appealing to think that a group "didn't really go extinct" because some of their descendants blended into other groups. But if the group no longer exists as a distinct people with a distinct culture and language, the group really is extinct. Perhaps something like Category:Former Indigenous peoples would be less noxious to the moral sense of the reader. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Genocide happens — In particular Genocide of Indigenous Australians. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mitch Ames That leads to two questions. Is there even one example in all of Australian history of an entire group being murdered without any known descendants? Are there any examples of groups who, through genocidal violence and assimilation, ceased to exist as distinct cultural groups? In both cases, there would have to be terminology to describe a group that once was and now is no longer. If not "extinct", there would still have to be some other description. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, we need to be careful not to conflate "genocide" and "extinction". Genocide does not require killing all of the people - it is defined as "intentional destruction ... in whole or in part". Extinction requires that they all die, but doesn't require intent. There may be an overlap, but they are not the same thing, and neither implies the other. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    agree genocide doesnt equate to extinction. @Bohemian Baltimore perhaps you should start with List of massacres of Indigenous Australians to understand the extent of Geonicidal acts in Australia. Gnangarra 12:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gnangarra Since my meaning apparently wasn't clear; there are genocidal acts of violence which lead to the literal or cultural destruction of peoples. What terminology would you use to refer to groups that have been physically annihilated in entirety through genocidal violence, disease, etc? What terminology would you use to refer to historical groups that may have living descendants but that are no longer culturally distinct due to genocidal violence, etc? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the issue the assumptions here are made based on the use of past tense language in the article, none of them have any reliable sources to support being included in this category. Given that the category itself should be deleted. Gnangarra 13:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gnangarra There are a small number of articles. I do not have a strong opinion on the category, whether it should be renamed or deleted. But I reiterate my question; are there any historical Indigenous Australian groups that can be said to have once existed but that no longer do? What terminology should be used to refer to those historical groups? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont have any reliable sources to answer that question, all I know is the articles in this category dont have reliable sources to even be included in the category. The whole purpose of raising it here is exatcly the category itself not some wider theoretical discussion on meanings or what ifs. I gather I can remove them all from this category for lack of sourcing that clearly supports the claim. Gnangarra 12:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gnangarra How would you feel about a category such as Category:Historical Indigenous peoples in Australia, Category:Historical Indigenous peoples, etc. or would that involve the same quandaries? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    to quotes The articles are fine in Category:Aboriginal peoples of Queensland anyway. Marcocapelle Gnangarra 05:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mitch Ames I'm not conflating genocide and extinction; I myself belong to a group whose history includes the former but not the latter. But I would question why the word extinction has to automatically mean everybody dies. I don't think a term like "cultural extinction" implies that. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    why the word extinction has to automatically mean everybody dies — Because when we are talking about people, that's what the word means "Extinction is the termination ... by the death of its last member." Admittedly if we are talking about culture we could say that the group is extinct if nobody belongs to it. (If we all gave up editing and WMF deleted Wikipedia, Wikipedians could be said to be "extinct", but most us would still be alive.)
    My main point here is that we should probably not use the word "genocide" in this discussion, because it is neither necessary nor sufficient for "extinction", and is unnecessarily emotive. Yes genocide happened, but that does not determine whether a particular people is extinct or not. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mitch Ames Okay. So what terminology should we use for "cultural extinction"? What terminology should we use to refer to historical groups that no longer exist as distinct cultures? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term "cultural extinction" is not helpful at all. Even if there is no tangible remainders of a culture you never know how much of customs and oral literature have been exchanged with and integrated in other cultures. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but that doesn't mean that the group still exists. So what terminology would you use for a group that once existed and does not now? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: having now been through every article not one defines the culture, people, or country as extinct, sadly Tindale works from 1974 is the primary source in every article and the most recent. The issue there their inclusion is based on whoever started the article using a generic type sentence like according to tindale they (some past tense word) from this area in Queensland. Ironically the only article with recent sourcing is about the current issue of domestic violance in Australia which makes no sense as its in this category. Gnangarra 12:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably you could solve the problem by changing "The Xxxx were ..." to "The Xxxx are ..." (other verb tense changes as appropriate), and providing a reliable source to support the statement of their continued existence. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I could change the wording, but as all the articles are basically say Tindale described these countries on his map as being xxxx, their inclusion in the category isnt based on reliable sources or hints of a reference to Extinct. I suggest the category becomes extinct. Gnangarra 14:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Possible alternatives to "extinct", for the purposes of renaming the category (tree):
    * Historical: we already have Category:Historical ethnic groups of Australia - which possibly should be merged (one way or the other) with Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia. Note that Category:Extinct ethnic groups is a subcat of Category:Historical ethnic groups, so probably Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia (if it remains) should be a subcat of Category:Historical ethnic groups by continent
    * nonextant
    Mitch Ames (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 01:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - for the record I had created this category in response to seeing a universal category being created for Extinct Indigenous groups, including Australian people, it seemed at the time better to identify the Australian component of an apparent claim. Note that by creating the category, I did not necessarily agree with either the category title or its assumptions, which is why I placed in bold comments as to the very specific event/issue raised in articles. I am intrigued by the discussion to date, as it seems either concentrating upon category trees and related subjects, or the issues of how to name groups of people who have been affected by reduction or severe loss of population. As the process in this particular part of wikipedia is relative to categories, there is a problem as to whether the actual subject is best ventured as to the veracity of terminology. It could be for everyones advantage to delete the original parent category, and find somewhere other than this CFD to explore the issues that are raised here. A collaborative approach to the wider wikipedian understanding of how to 'frame' the larger world wide issue of how and when ethnic groups have decimation of population is something well beyond the bounds of this cfd, and to simply arrive at a decision here on one small perspective does the larger project some significant disservice. Definitely not a 'free for all' RFC or similar, it needs a very specific guideline and process that works through the issues raised here, for the larger project. But then this is wikipedia, anything could happen. JarrahTree 02:24, 17 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]

Category:Rebel princes[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D: main article princely rebellion. NLeeuw (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alt proposal rationale by Marcocapelle (opposed speedy rename): this is a category of princes, not so much of rebellions. Perhaps split. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:31, 8 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) 00:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fwiw, I would also be fine with keeping as is. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, that simply means I should create separate category B and manually move all applicable items there. I think we can close this CFD and do it ourselves, as no admin action is required. NLeeuw (talk) 21:33, 20 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]

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]

Category:Armenian screenwriters by century[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which isn't helpful for navigation. (Even if a 2nd category were made, it still wouldn't be helpful as this is the only category in the in parent) Mason (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. By the way the subcategory covers the century that is probably the least interesting to people who study history of literature. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The problem here is that Category:21st-century Armenian screenwriters is using the standardized {{Screenwriters by nationality and century category header}} framework — but that template autogenerates an artificially-transcluded "[Country-named-in-this-category] screenwriters by century" as a standard part of its formatting. But that can't be left to sit there redlinked, so either it has to exist regardless of any size issues, or we have to wrap the template in {{suppress categories}} to bork its category generation and then manually file Category:21st-century Armenian screenwriters in the other categories that still exist. But that would defeat the entire purpose of using the standardized template in the first place, and would have the side-effect of stranding that category from the Category:Screenwriters by nationality and century tree.
    I'm not at all wedded to this being essential, and have personally wrapped many category-generating templates in the suppress categories wrapper when necessary, but just wanted to point out that there are "standardized formatting" considerations here beyond size.
    Really, it's more a question of whether Category:Armenian screenwriters need any by-century categorization yet — with only six people in the 21st-century category and only 20 in the parent, it's not clear that subbing them out for century is needed at all — but if the 21st-century category does exist, then this is automatically imposed and transcluded by the template as a standard and expected parent for it, so the question is really less about the need for this than it is the need for a 21st-century category to exist at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bearcat, I'm not sure how the this comment is relevant to the nomination at hand. And, for the record, it isn't the case the FOOian occupation by century needs to exist. That category is only added if it exists, otherwise, the category is added to FOOian screenwriters. Mason (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a person who works regularly with cleaning up redlinked categories at Special:WantedCategories, I have to deal with new redlinked categories autogenerated by occupation header templates of this type all the phunking time. So just telling me that they suppress redlinks isn't convincing when I routinely see hard evidence that they don't. Bearcat (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have examples of this that are recent (like since April 6th)? Because each time there's been an red link, I've added a fix to address it [2]. The present code exclusively uses resolve category redirects and checks if the category exists before it adds it. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would really like to see it so that I can figure out what is not working as intended. Mason (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:40, 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) 00:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ships built on the River Orwell[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This is a redundant layer. Mason (talk) 00:46, 17 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]

Category:Hindu temples destroyed by Muslims[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There's really not a need to diffuse this category by perpetrator Mason (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Current thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom is fine. My comment was on a grandchild category, but the proposal as it stands is sound. NLeeuw (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 16[edit]

Central Bohemian Region geography stubs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unused stub templates. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All of these stub types are contained within Category:Central Bohemian Region geography stubs and have been combined into one. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I checked "what links here" for the first two and no article popped up. Is there a more easy way to check this? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I identified all of the categories that contained only a stub template. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Czech geo-stubs are uniformly sorted by regions and there is no reason to sort one unsystematically by districts. Yes, the Central Bohemian Region is bigger than the others, but even so, it is not over-sized per Wikipedia:Stub#Guidelines On the contrary, division by district would cause that they would by under-sized stub categories (currently, the average per district is 62 stubs and the number is decreasing). FromCzech (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per standard WPSS practice and populate. @LaundryPizza03, Marcocapelle, and FromCzech: There is clear evidence that the templates and categories were originally acknowledged for use at WP:WPSS (they are listed here). It seems that actually using the templates was overlooked rather than discouraged. There is also clear evidence that they would be useful - the Central Bohemia category was over the limit at which it should be split at WPSS (600 stubs). It seems that simply no-one got round to populating them. This not "unsystematic" - Central Bohemia is the only region of the Czech Republic to have reached the 600 stub threshold for splitting. Others are getting close, but are not there yet. I've populated two of the categories, both of which are over the threshold, but have now paused at the request of User:FromCzech, despite all I am doing is using the stub templates as they were intended. If the categories do not measure up to the 60+ stubs needed for each, then they can be upmerged with no prejudice against them being re-created if and when they meet the required 60 stub standard. In any case, the original proposal, of deleting the templates, is flawed. If the templates were malformed or not in accordance to stub sorting practice, they would be deleted, but these should simply be upmerged to the main category as per standard stub-sorting practice, with the categories proposed for deletion. Have a look at, say Category:Ireland geography stubs to see this practice in action. The easiest way to tell whether they reach that standard already is to stub them appropriately, which should happen anyway if there are better stub templates available, which there are. As such, I am simply following standard practice for WPSS - and also for CFD, in which there is long-standing tradition that if it can be shown that a category is useful (which in stub-sorting means reaching the 60-stub threshold) it will likely be kept. PS: If they are a historical relic, as FromCzech suggests, then they should not be categorised within the permcats for the various districts (e.g., Category:Populated places in Benešov District) and the whole of the Central Bohemia catalogue tree needs to be changed. Grutness...wha? 05:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. Well if someone is going to populate them, I wouldn't mind of course. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will once @FromCzech: says it's OK to :) Grutness...wha? 08:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have some stupid questions and comments because I don't know much about stub-sorting and English is not my native language, so maybe I didn't understand something. First, districts were included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types/Geography in 2010 – that's pretty out of date and should be updated, not taken as the 2024 standard. Considering the number of municipalities in the region, there were about 1,100 stubs at that time and today the situation is different. From this point of view, I called them a historical relic.
    Second, where does the 600+ stub limit come from? I couldn't find it anywhere in WP. The definition of over-sized category is 800+. The Central Bohemian Region stub category has been below 800 for a long time, currently around 740 stubs. That's not much. It is consistent within the country and better than splitting it into undersized stub categories, or having half in the main category and half split. (Out of 12 districts, 2 districts would currently have approx. 80 stubs, 4 districts would have 60–70 stubs and 6 districts under 60. Even the largest categories are small). I don't understand exactly what the upmerge is, but anyway I think that whether the categories get deleted or not, they shouldn't be used. FromCzech (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FromCzech: The Stub types list is a list of stub types created and used by the Stub-sorting WikiProject. Stub types on it don't become archaic - they're simply added to when more types come along. The templates themselves are rarely deleted, though they may get redirected to a parent ctegory or become redirects to a more basic stub template. As to the 600... hmm, I note that Wikipedia:Stub says 800, but the WikiProject has been using 600 as a threshold for many years. An upmerge simply means that the template would be kept, but that rather than pointing to a specific category, it would point to the parent - e.g., Template:KutnáHora-geo-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) would populsate the main Category:Central Bohemian Region geography stubs rather than a separate Kutná Hora category. This is frequently done with stub types - templates used on over 60 articles would be split out into their own categories, ones that don't get that many would simply populate the parent category. So in this case, four districts would keep their stub categories, the rest would be umpmerged into the main category. PS - not a silly question - stubs are complicated. And if my Czech was as good as your English, I'd be very happy! :) Grutness...wha? 04:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wisconsin-road-stub[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WestIndies-cricket-season-stub[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WashingtonCountyID-geo-stub[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uruguay-cemetery-stub[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:North American sports venue stubs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only contents are a stub template that does not populate the category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Zealand-cricket-ground-stub[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:India-cricket-season-stub[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ecuadorian company stubs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete category. The template already feeds into its parents. Grutness...wha? 03:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bhutan-tv-stub[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2020s-Western-film-stub[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1960s-Tamil-film-stub[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to parent (Category:Tamil-language film 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. Grutness...wha? 03:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1950s-UK-single-stub[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to parent (Category:British single 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. Grutness...wha? 03:45, 18 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]

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]

Category:Ranellidae stubs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only 6 articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot 'em up stub subtypes[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Insufficiently large stub categories that together are barely smaller than the parent stub category, Category:Shoot 'em up stubs (82). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Quintana Roo radio station stubs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Too small; only extant stub category for Quintana Roo. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Queensland river stubs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Insufficient contents to justify a standalone category for this stub type. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Queen Elizabeth Land geography stubs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Insufficiently large to justify a standalone stub category. The associated stub category, {{QueenElizabethLand-geo-stub}}, will probably be kept. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge category. Make that "The associated stub template [...] will definitely be kept" and I agree. It looks like a lot of small stub articles on individual mountains, nunataks, etc., have been merged into articles on mountain ranges, which makes sense. A shame, since the basic Antarctica geo-cat had been completely subdivided and now a second subcat's being merged back into it. Took me months to do that! Grutness...wha? 05:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Keeping the stub template is default in a nomination like this, isn't it? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom --Lenticel (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Qarchak County geography stubs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Insufficient contents to warrant a separate stub category. The associated stub template, {{Qarchak-geo-stub}}, will not be deleted due to its systematic nature. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arabian Gulf Futsal Cup[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The GCC Futsal Cup page (the main page for this category) was moved to "Arabian Gulf Futsal Cup" in 2018 without any explanation or source for the name change. I have not found any evidence that the name of this tournament (which hasn't been held since 2015) was actually changed. Hence, I have moved the page back to GCC Futsal Cup and ask that the category also be moved back. Hashim-afc (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alsatian people[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge (or reverse merge), very overlapping categories. Article List of Alsatians and Lotharingians describes Alsatians as people from the region Alsace. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Languages of Alsace[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, only one article in the category, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tschugguel family[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There are only two people in this category, which isn't helpful for navigation, and it is not clear how/if they are related. Delete for now, no objection to recreation if it becomes useful. Mason (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient law (before 6th century BC)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: A collection of chronology categories that contain only one subcategory each; the 13th- and 7th-century BC subcategories also contain one article each, but Category:6th-century BC executions is excluded because it contains 5 articles. I think we will need a Category:Law by millennium tree to cover ancient laws, including ones that are even older than these categories (eg. Category:2nd-millennium BC executions, Code of Hammurabi from the 18th-century BC). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish mimes[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEGRS User:Namiba 17:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rajput clans of India[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Are there any not of India? * Pppery * it has begun... 15:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, there is no point in splitting this between India and Pakistan. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:YouTubers of Jewish descent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category should either be renamed to match the current norm of Jewish FOOers. Or deleted/merged to YouTubers as being descended from Jewish people is not defining (as opposed to being Jewish, which might be in this case) Mason (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEGRS. All of the categories I looked at are already in a national or sub-national YouTubers category.--User:Namiba 16:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Namiba. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Louisville White Sox (1914-1915) players[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This is an uncontroversial technical request but I don't see the option to indicate that using Twinkle. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 16:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Ewloe[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Ewloe is a small village. Upmerge for now, until there's actually enough people to need diffusion Mason (talk) 12:59, 16 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]

Category:French people of Lorrainian descent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, the category contains articles about French people who lived long after the Duchy of Lorraine was annexed by France: this happened end of the 18th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. This also doesn't really feel like a defining feature for any of the people in this category. Mason (talk) 13:00, 16 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]

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]

Category:Palestinian musicians by genre[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sikh monarchs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: dual merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parents seem to be inappropriate but they do fit the content. All Sikhs in this category are Punjabis, all Jats in this category are Sikhs. The content of this category shouldn't be moved out of the Punjabi or Jat tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That they do fit the content is irrelevant; we've got other trees for that. Chand Kaur is already in Category:Punjabi women, for example. Btw Duleep Singh was a Christian for several decades, so we can't assume all of them to have been Sikhs ever. If we really wanna categorise all that in 1 category, then we should rename them Category:Punjabi Sikh Jat emperors or something. NLeeuw (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the alt proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Albanian rights activists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I think we should rename this category so it is easier to distinguish from Albanian activists. I think that this category is supposed to be Activists who advocate for the rights of Albanian people, as opposed to activists who are albanian nationals. Similar categories like this one are Category:Activists for Hispanic and Latino American civil rights & Category:Activists for African-American civil rights Mason (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 08:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on the deletion proposal would be very much appreciated! (If there is no further participation, I would expect this discussion would result in a rename.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Smasongarrison, Nederlandse Leeuw, and Bohemian Baltimore: please comment on the alt deletion proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not opposed to purging. But there are folks in there like Ali Aliu, who seems to be defined by both his nationalism and his support of rights of ethnic albanians. Mason (talk) 04:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All 5 people in this category seem to be ethnic Albanians in Kosovo who were/are opposed to oppression of Kosovo Albanians by Serbs, as well as nationalists who sought independence or unification with Albania. But it is a mixed bag. One is a militant rebel, another is an educator. I suppose we could Merge them all to Category:Albanian nationalists in Kosovo, where 3 out of 5 of them already are. The subcategory has nothing to do with Kosovo per se, and should be Purged. NLeeuw (talk) 06:15, 16 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]

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"