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 23:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 131 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).

  • The closure has not been implemented yet, but it will be processed soon. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed requests[edit]

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
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 12[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Canadian military personnel from Kelowna[edit]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT-related music[edit]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs against capitalism[edit]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nigerian books by year[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Also delete Category:2015 Nigerian books, Category:2017 Nigerian books

Contains two subcategories, each containing only 1 article. Gjs238 (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transport infrastructure by decade[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, very complicated tree for only a few subcategories about bridges, canals and lighthouses. Note that this nomination is not about these bridges, canals or lighthouses subcategories, but only about intermediate container categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Congenital amputees[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between specific disability and source of the disability. Mason (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the categorization rules (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization) is that categories that are relevant are based on what criteria are considered defining. I believe that congenital amputee status is considered a meaningful category in the emic (i.e., members) of the limb difference community. E.g., https://www.amputee-coalition.org/resources/amputations-in-childhood/ . This reflects the fact that the lived experience of those with congenital vs acquired amputations is often quite different (e.g., variation in phantom limb experience, the need to actively learn how to function without a limb from birth vs learning as an adult, the use of prosthetics vs not [prosthetics are less frequently used by those with congenital limb differences]). I am aware of this through my extensive involvement with the limb difference community. It can also be observed by a read of the discussions of amputees and those with limb differences (e.g., one of many examples here: https://www.reddit.com/r/amputee/comments/zl8rdk/looking_for_insight_into_child_amputee/).
Note also that there is a Wikipedia page for congenital amputees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_amputation) which per categorization rules is an important signal that a category is defining. Calculatedfire (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also meant to add- there is a precedence set for amputee categories based on the current categories presented (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Amputees). Certainly congenital amputees is just as or probably notably recognized as per current Wikipedia guidelines (e.g., having its own Wikipedia page) than other categories (e.g., there is no page German amputees; "Works about Amputees" is certainly not a defining characteristic of much of the included media. This is not to say that these other categories should be removed, but rather, to show that congenital meets the required threshold of defining. Calculatedfire (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think you'll be able to make a more compelling case if you review WP:EGRS/D which gives clearer rules for intersections with disability and other characteristics (gender, race, sexuality etc). Could you show me where having a wikipedia page about a condition means that "per categorization rules is an important signal that a category is defining"? Because I don't think that is sufficient to have a wikipedia page to ensure that it could be a category. Mason (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean to oppose, I may be mistaken but at first glance I don't think there is a trivial intersection at stake. Congenital amputation is being born without a limb, which is a "thing" in itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But is it defining for individuals? I'm open to having my mind changed, but I don't think people tend to have the lead of the article stating that they are a congenital amputee. If anything, the leads will be about amputees who acquired their disability through a headline grabbing fashion. Now, I'm well aware that there is literature on differences between acquired and congenital disabilities, and that has implications for interventions as well as well-being.
    However, I still don't think that "reliable sources [...] regularly describe the person as having th[e] characteristic". Fuller quote from Wikipedia:EGRS/D
    >"People with disabilities, intersex conditions, and other medical or psychological states or conditions, should not be added to subcategories of Category:People with disabilities, Category:Intersex people or Category:People by medical or psychological condition unless that condition is considered WP:DEFINING for that individual. For example, there may be people who have amnesia, but if reliable sources don't regularly describe the person as having that characteristic, they should not be added to the category."
    Mason (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, here I did some more research:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorizing_articles_about_people under "Specific Intersections":
    "At all times, the bottom line remains can a valid, encyclopedic main article be written for this grouping?"
    There is a main article on this subject as I noted in my original response.
    Thank you as I am learning to navigate this process. Calculatedfire (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as constituted, though open to other alternatives if somebody's got a better idea. The distinction obviously hasn't been upheld all that well in the past, but today there is greater recognition than there used to be that there is a qualitative difference between being born with a congenital limb difference and the later loss due to injury or disease of a limb one previously had. It is, for example, one of the reasons why we moved Category:Amputee sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople with limb difference about a year and a half ago, so that the terminology was more inclusive. Medical literature is stricter on the distinction now than it used to be, referring to congenital limb difference rather than congenital amputation; people with congenital limb differences are more outspoken about the differences; even media try harder now to recognize and respect the distinction (even if they're not always perfect); and on and so forth. So really, we should either allow the category system to uphold the distinction, or pick an alternative term like "people with limb difference", instead of continuing to use "amputees", if consensus really wants to collapse it. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 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) 17:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings Downtown Portland, Oregon[edit]

Nominator's rationale: --Another Believer (Talk) 14:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It's the "Downtown" that distinguishes this category. Portland is a major city with many distinct neighborhoods. It would be helpful to look up buildings by neighborhood, rather than lumping every building in the city together. Thanks. Pickwiki (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, rename to Category:Buildings and structures in Downtown Portland, Oregon. No opinion on whether than warrants a category. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]


May 11[edit]

Category:MSI nettops[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only one article in category. Upmerge to relevant categories. Gonnym (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rihard Jakopič[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete for now: This eponymous category only has the artist and a pavilion that is named after them. Such a category, with two pages is unhelpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now: categories like redirects are WP:CHEAP. Maybe the category will be populated in the future. Do you see no prospect for expansion of this right now unhelpful category? Awesome Aasim 21:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jakopič is well known artist in Slovenia and in future the category will likely contain Slovenian streets named after him. Category is useful to me. A09|(talk) 12:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles about streets named after an artist do not belong in a category anyway, as these articles do not provide any information about the artist. The streets may be listed in the article about the artist though. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEPON, and the two articles are already directly interlinked. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with the deletion of this category as it only contains two articles besides the eponymous one. If there are more articles created on the artist about some of his paintings (which are notable but I don't expect it will happen right away), the category may be recreated. Thanks for the notification. --TadejM my talk 22:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coaches Kerala Cricket Team 2023[edit]

Nominator's rationale: One-entry category for a non-defining characteristic. We do not exhaustively subcategorize cricket coaches for the individual year they worked, particularly given that sports teams normally only have one coach at any given time, and thus each category would have only one entry (or perhaps two if a coach got fired and replaced partway through the season, but never, ever enough to actually surpass minimum size requirements for categories). And even if this category were justified, this wouldn't be its correct name anyway. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 11 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]

Category:United States National Recording Registry albums[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:24, 3 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) 19:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, otherwise upmerge per Marcocapelle. Like all participants in these two CfDs, I'm not clear what the issue is. Not all recordings are albums, so there isn't an obvious redundancy here. But like the sole participant in the previous CfD, I'm not sure if these really make sense as categories rather than a list. -- Visviva (talk) 02:13, 12 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]

Category:People of South Asian descent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The boundaries of South Asia are not well-defined. Beyond the central regions of the Indian Empire, there is significant inconsistency in which additional countries are considered part of South Asia. Clear demarcations—whether geographical, geopolitical, socio-cultural, economic, or historical—between South Asia and other Asian regions are lacking. Aldij (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: Asia is a huge continent. I see this as creating more confusion when making categories than having them separate. The geographical boundaries can be debated but it does not change that some reliable sources including sources close to the author refer to the subject as of "South Asian" descent. Awesome Aasim 21:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, in the history tree for before 1947, the term "India" is mostly used to encompass the current territory of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. "South Asia" might be a better alternative than "India". Marcocapelle (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Regardless of the variability in definition of "South Asia" in the real world, Wikipedia has solved the problem for its own purposes. We have numerous articles and categories relating to "South Asia". The 8 countries we include are listed at South Asia. It is untrue that we lack a clear demarcation. To help with the issue of users not being aware of which countries are covered, we could copy and paste the list of 8 countries into the top of each category listed above. If there is a valid rationale for merging, it's not the one presented above. Nurg (talk) 09:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia intends to follow the real world, not to set its own standards. Of these 8 countries, Afghanistan is very questionable as it is often counted as part of Central Asia, but the other 7 are ok. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless this is a proposal to upmerge all intermediate regional categories into Fooian people of Asian descent categories, for consistency. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would oppose such a proposal as well because geography. South Asians are culturally and linguistically different from East Asians and Middle Eastern Asians. Distance does a lot to culture. Awesome Aasim 20:52, 12 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]

Category:20th-century Algerian photographers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge for now. This category is only has one person in it and doesn't help navigation. Mason (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Students in Mauritius[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one page in this category, which is unhelpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 10[edit]

Category:Random Pages Tests[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary Capitalization; Consistency With Wikipedia:Random pages test Queen of Hearts (talk) 23:49, 10 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]

Category:Rhino Records albums[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Rhino Records was renamed to Rhino Entertainment. Same company shouldn't have separate categories. Add all three renames to Category:Rhino Entertainment. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gruppo API[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Category contains 1 eponymous article and 1 redirect, which is targeted to the same eponymous article. Gjs238 (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-denominational[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC/U#not-based * Pppery * it has begun... 18:19, 10 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]

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]
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]
  • 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]

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]
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]
  • 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]

Category:Nance Family[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only three entries and no others to add. Not necessary to have a family category when this is the most there will ever be in it. SportsGuy789 (talk) 04:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the articles are already directly interlinked in the body text of the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:14th-century French Sephardi Jews[edit]

Nominator's rationale: 3x upmerge for now. It's not helpful for navigation to diffuse 14th/13th century sephardi jews by nationality when theres only one or two people in the category Mason (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete, one article is about a Jew who wasn't of Spanish origin, the other about an ex-Jew who wasn't French. Generally the concept of French Sephardi Jews does not make much sense before 1492 (Alhambra Decree). Marcocapelle (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 9[edit]

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]

Category:Beauty pageant contestants from Lagos[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-notable intersection User:Namiba 19:29, 9 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]

Category:Third-person view[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I've created this one few minutes ago, but maybe the name should be analogous to Category:First-person video games? Consider the existence of Category:First-person shooters and Category:Third-person shooters, with only the first having a parent category outside shooter games (until my creation). Both have main articles. However, third-person view has a redirect to an article section, while first-person view goes to a disambig, sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: what other content are you planning to add to this category? That will provide the answer to the question. If topic articles are going to be added then "view" seems the right name. If only video games are going to be added then "video games" is the obvious right name. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there isn't anything going to be added on a short term then the category might as well be deleted, because of lack of content. It can be recreated when it is more clear what sort of content there is. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now without prejudice per Marcocapelle. I can't think of anything else to add either. There are lots of other games that are third person, but that is either WP:NONDEFINING because virtually no other game of that genre (say, RPG, survival, puzzles etc.), uses first-person view, uses bird's eye view or isometric view (e.g. RTS games), or you can switch between first and third person (sometimes even second person). "Third-person shooter" is the only commonly used term in video gaming that I know of. NLeeuw (talk) 23:01, 9 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 [1]. 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]

Category:Nigerian gay writers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 or 2 articles, too small to aid navigation. All are already in the appropriate sub-categories. User:Namiba 15:53, 9 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]

Caribbean people by descent‎[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename for consistency with their subcategories which are all "by descent", as well as for consistency with Category:North American people by descent at the top of the tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:09, 9 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.[2]. 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]
    @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]

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]
  • Rename per nom. 08:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

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]

Category:Disinformation operations[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category contains medias that are mainstream, and most of these are from certain countries. Coddlebean (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't feel qualified to be a great judge in the matter, but it does seem to be a bit of an WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Disinformation operations definitely exist, but what does that mean exactly for categorisation purposes? Sure, Category:Government spokespersons of Russia spread a lot of disinformation, no doubt about that; but does that make them "operations"? I don't think that makes grammatical sense. Perhaps this category just needs to be Purged? NLeeuw (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge, to begin with. There are nuanced differences between disinformation, misinformation, propaganda and fake news and this category contains all of that. As we have Category:Misinformation, Category:Fake news and Category:Propaganda as well, it would make sense to remove all articles and subcategories from Category:Disinformation operations if they are already in one of the three other trees. After that is done we may re-evaluate what to do with this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support purge Seems like a good approach to begin with. NLeeuw (talk) 23:05, 9 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]

Category:Continental League contributors[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No need for parent category, see below. ―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]

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]

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]

Category:Philosophers of theodicy[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. I don't think we need to diffuse this category by the specific question in the philosophy of religion, especially since this cateogory only has one person it it. Mason (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, this doesn't seem to be a particularly useful subdivision of Category:Philosophers of religion. Psychastes (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philosophers by ethnicity[edit]

Nominator's rationale: per WP:OCEGRS, there doesn't seem to be a reason why philosophers should be categorized by ethnicity Psychastes (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If not deleted, I think that Jewish philosophers‎ should be added to Category:Philosophers by ethnicity. Mason (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 8[edit]

Category:Early Germanic music[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now, there's not enough content to support a category right now. There's only one page in here (and Early Germanic music redirects to Early Germanic culture Mason (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the article is about the 8th/9th century in the British Isles, that is outside the scope of early Germanic culture. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Native Americans' rights activists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Rename to make the distinction between being an activist who is of native american ancestry and someone who is in support of the rights of people who are of native american ancestry. This category is a siblings to Category:Activists for African-American civil rights‎ and Category:Activists for Hispanic and Latino American civil rights, which were renamed following this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_4#Category:African-Americans'_civil_rights_activists Mason (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
support per nom jengod (talk) 22:40, 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]
Support per nom. PersusjCP (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - seems reasonable. --ARoseWolf 12:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per nom. Makes sense. Netherzone (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, but why not "civil rights" like the other categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think it's because not only does "Native American rights" encompass civil rights, but also treaty rights. PersusjCP (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also there are quite a few Native American environmental justice rights activists, too. Netherzone (talk) 00:23, 10 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]
  • Delete, the content is about Albanian nationalism rather than about civil rights. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of airports in Massachusetts[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category. Let'srun (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Places" doesn't make sense. Up-merge to Airports in the United States and delete category all together. CaribDigita (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Lists of airports in the United States for now without prejudice per CaribDigita. NLeeuw (talk) 06:18, 9 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]

Category:Punjabi diaspora in Asia[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, not enough content for diffusion by continent. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now per nom. Normally a "by country" category is a containercat, but in this case it's not marked as such, and it would create an impractical situation if it were (as indicated by nom), so it's fine. NLeeuw (talk) 06:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Book of Joel people[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, single-article categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Not every Hebrew Bible book must have its own people category per se. There is no need to merge to Category:Hebrew Bible people, the articles are already in Category:Prophets in the Hebrew Bible. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tuvan independence activists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Broaden this category so it can include other kinds of activists. Mason (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People from Overseas France by ethnic or national origin[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename for consistency with their subcategories which are all "by descent", as well as for consistency with Category:French people by descent at the top of the tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suicide books[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge: These categories seem to be extremely overlapping Mason (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: @NLeeuw: @Mason: I want to take a moment to clarify the nature of the category we're discussing. It appears there might have been a misunderstanding, and I'd like to ensure we're on the same page. The category in question pertains to books on the topic of DIY suicide. These books delve into sensitive and potentially dangerous instructions related to suicide. As such, they carry a significant degree of risk and responsibility. It's important to recognize that their content can have serious implications for individuals who may be vulnerable or in distress. Given the sensitive nature of this subject matter, it's understandable that there may be concerns regarding the availability and promotion of such materials. Our intention is not to offend or upset, but rather to approach this topic with caution and consideration for the well-being of all individuals involved. I apologize if there was any confusion regarding the purpose or scope of this category. Geysirhead (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. NLeeuw (talk) 06:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Single merge to Category:Books about suicide; Category:Suicide methods does not seem to be an appropriate merge target. Perhaps keep a redirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Single merge per Marcocapelle. A book about suicide can be about a lot more than just the methods. Think about motives, underlying causes, social impact, prevention, statistics, cultural depictions and references, etc. NLeeuw (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great points! Mason (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Georgetown College (Kentucky)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: In line with the main article, Georgetown College. Graham (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 7[edit]

Category:Comic book editors[edit]

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

Category:Ethnic groups in the Arab world[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT, largely duplicative of Category:Ethnic groups in the Middle East (which actually has a proper, identically named main article: Ethnic groups in the Middle East) and Category:Ethnic groups in North Africa, with an unnecessary focus on "Arab" in the title instead of recognising the ethnic diversity of the region. NLeeuw (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, ethnic groups in the Middle East and in North Africa are unrelated to each other (except for Arabs of course). Marcocapelle (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nom. --Aldij (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pornography in Australia[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT. Exactly the same scope. Category:Pornography in Australia was created today; Category:Australian pornography in 2011, so the latter should be the merge target to preserve the edit history. However, for consistency per WP:C2C and per main article Pornography in Austria per WP:C2D, Pornography in Australia should be the catname once the merger has been completed. That will leave Category:Pornography in Oceania a redundant layer with 1 C 0 P, so it should be upmerged to its parents for now without prejudice per WP:MFN. NLeeuw (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:IMAX venues in the United Kingdom[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Category lacks subjects. Let'srun (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Communism in the Arab world[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT WP:OVERLAPCAT. All children are already in parents Category:Communism in Asia and Category:Communism in Asia (part of the Category:Political movements by continent tree), as well as Category:Communism by country). On the other hand, Category:Arab communists is in the Category:People by ethnicity and political orientation tree, which has been inappropriately intersected with the trees above. NLeeuw (talk) 06:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Added Conservatism and Monarchism which are very similar situations. Other siblings could be nominated as well, but I suggest we do them as follow-ups in order to not make this nomination overly complicated. NLeeuw (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose this ongoing process of dismantling Category:Arab world one layer at a time. The above participants have argued for retention of this hierarchy, so this group appear to be safe for now. If any further nominations are made, rather than deletion of Arab world categories, the nom should suggest replacing them by building out "in the Middle East" and "in North Africa" hierarchies, which have been the targets of some other former Arab world categories – like the Ethnic groups nomination above. Category:Politics of North Africa is currently rather thin. – Fayenatic London 10:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair points. I guess this nomination was malformed from the start. I'll withdraw and start over with a better proposal at some later stage. NLeeuw (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I'm not necessarily advocating for the entire dismantling of the Category:Arab world tree per se. I'm looking at all the branches to see if they make sense or not, and what alternatives there may be. Some categories appear more justifiable than others. NLeeuw (talk) 10:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabi people by occupation[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCEGRS, trivial intersection between occupation and ethnicity. There is mostly no need to merge, the articles are already in a parallel Indian or Pakistani category if applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a notable intersection [3][4]--User:Namiba 14:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is mainly about Indian descent, as the second link also illustrates. Hardly any of these articles is about someone of Pakistani descent, while a clear majority of Punjabi are Pakistanis. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Quebec Kebs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Defunct minor league team containing no articles except the team article, the arena it temporarily inhabited, and the coaches category. User:Namiba 14:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct National Basketball League of Canada teams[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The NBLC itself is defunct. User:Namiba 14:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championships[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Harmonizing subcategory names in the Category:IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championship. Please see also the previous discussion here. Maiō T. (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The nomenclature aligns with the official name of the tournament as used by the IIHF. Spitzmauskc (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The naming is unnecessarily redundant. The proposal is equivalent to "1999 International Ice Hockey Federation Ice Hockey Women's World Championships". What logical reason is there to say ice hockey twice? Seems like the parent category should be discussed, not the children. Flibirigit (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The IIHF uses "IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championship" on all official documentation. I suspect the inclusion of 'Ice Hockey' has its roots in the period during which the IIHF also organized the IIHF Inline Hockey World Championship. While I don’t disagree that the name may read as redundant, I do see value in maintaining the official name and feel the inclusion of 'Ice Hockey' is a helpful indicator for readers who may not be familiar with the IIHF acronym. Spitzmauskc (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've tagged all of the categories and notified the creators.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rātana politicians[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. No need to merge, the subcategory is already in the tree of the three potential targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we certain there are no Rātana people who stood but were not elected? I would prefer to keep ‘politicians’, but delete ‘MPs’. If that is not preferred, then yes, I would still delete ‘politicians’. — HTGS (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there seems to be a lot of confusion in this category (and in articles relating to Rātana as a political force). Some of these people are adherents of the Rātana faith who became MPs, others of them were MPs for the Rātana Party or (after affiliation with the Labour Party) MPs officially endorsed by the Rātana church. Soraya Peke-Mason, for example, is a Rātana, but not an official Rātana-endorsed MP. If that can be cleared up I'd support Marcocapelle's second suggestion (merging MPs into politicians). Grutness...wha? 14:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Belgian Ministers of Defence[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename, "of country" seems to be the standard format. I am not sure about the capitalization. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the nom. Looking at the Category:Defense ministers by country category tree, the vast majority use a "Defence ministers of X" format, my original proposal was to rename any that don't to match the category tree per C2C. A similar situation is seen in the other ministers category trees. AusLondonder (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paintings of the Sacrifice of Isaac[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, only very few articles in Category:Paintings of Isaac and it is not part of any other tree because Category:Sacrifice of Isaac or Category:Binding of Isaac does not exist. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian people of Tajik descent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: 1 article category Gjs238 (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly part of a detailed and comprehensive category tree. No purpose whatsoever served by deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete, the category does not contain any biography. The topic article is already in Category:Asian diaspora in Canada where it properly belongs. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British people of Tajik descent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: 1 article category Gjs238 (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caucasus Jews[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There are two Jewish ethnic groups originating from the Caucasus region: Mountain Jews and Georgian Jews. The term Caucasus Jews currently redirects to "Mountain Jews." These two groups are culturally distinct; they speak different languages and have many differences in customs and culture. However, other Jewish communities have also resided and continue to reside in the Caucasus region, including primarily Ashkenazi Jews, as well as some Sephardic and Bukharan Jews. Therefore, this category does not make sense. Currently, this category encompasses Jews from three modern countries, yet "Caucasus Jews" redirects to "Mountain Jews." Note: I have just separated the entries for category:Jews from Georgia (country) and category:Georgian Jews. Aldij (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People from British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies by ethnic or national origin[edit]

Nominator's rationale:rename for consistency with the subcategories which are aĺl "by descent", as well as for consistency with Category:British people by descent at the top of the tree. This is follow-up after this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of West Asian descent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category tree is not needed. Western Asia is often conflated with the Middle East. Western Asia includes the South Caucasus but does not include Egypt (outside the Sinai Peninsula) and Turkish Thrace (geographically in Southeast Europe). Now "West Asian descent" categories merely serve as containers for "Middle East descent" and "Caucasus descent." However, these classifications are not entirely accurate. The term "People of Middle East descent" includes individuals from the African part of Egypt and Turkish Thrace in Europe, while "People of Caucasus descent" encompasses individuals from the North Caucasus in Europe. Aldij (talk) 09:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Asian parent categories. I agree that West Asia and Middle East are largely overlapping and we do not need both. However, it does not make sense to remove the content from the Asian tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Merging to Asian parent categories is my second choice per Marco. NLeeuw (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First, Category:Canadian people of West Asian descent has been emptied. Secondly, if we have categories for South Asia and Southeast Asia, wouldn't it make more sense to keep West Asia and dump the "Middle East" categories instead? They both are a little imprecise but what would make more sense fitting in with the existing geographic categorization? Liz Read! Talk! 19:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it would be better to merge the category trees of South Asia and Southeast Asia into Asia as well. I will nominate them separately now. Regarding the decision to discard the "Middle East" categories, I'm not certain there is consensus for this, nor am I sure whether I will personally support it. However, perhaps they need to be deleted as well. Aldij (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chinese retired emperors[edit]

Nominator's rationale: More clear, consistent with related categories. Remsense诉 06:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Preferably nominate the Japanese and Vietnamese sibling categories too. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Union Theological Seminary (New York City)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: In line with the main article about the subject, which was recently the subject of a requested move discussion that determined that the New York seminary is the primary topic for the title. Graham (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom – the previous discussion has established that Union Theological Seminary is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so this should be followed in the category name. Robminchin (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify what you mean? As discussed in the RM discussion, of the five other articles listed on that disambiguation page:
  • Three of them use a name prefixed with a city and we were unable to find any references to any of them as simply "Union Theological Seminary". (As partial title matches, they're probably borderline cases as to whether they should even be listed in the body of the disambiguation page rather than the see also section.)
  • One of them (Union Presbyterian Seminary) was historically known as "Union Theological Seminary" but changed their name a number of years ago in part to distinguish themselves from the much better-known New York seminary. (By way of comparison, the fact that the University of Portland was historically known as "Columbia University" rightly doesn't stop the title Category:Columbia University from being used for the New York institution.)
  • One of them (Union Theological Seminary (Philippines)) is so obscure that, despite apparently being an English-language institution, there was minimal information available online about them. IACOBVS suggested that they may have actually been named after the New York seminary.
This would seem to be a clear-cut case of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, especially when we take into account the fact that the New York seminary is recognized internationally as a major intellectual centre of mainline Protestantism and liberal theology and its article is viewed 10 times more often than Union Presbyterian Seminary and 26 times more often than Union Theological Seminary (Philippines).
Additionally, why would we use a different title for the article versus the category? Graham (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Graham: we frequently do that with categories that have ambiguous names. A higher level of primacy is required for categories, otherwise it is highly likely that articles will be placed incorrectly in a category based on its name alone, without checking the scope specified on the category page. – Fayenatic London 21:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but in this case, it is nigh inconceivable that a user would place an article incorrectly in this category. Three of the other institutions have never shared a name with the New York seminary, so there is no ambiguity. One of them hasn't shared a name with the New York seminary for years. And – given that the Philippine seminary appears to be so insignificant that I would be shocked to learn that there is even a single academic there that meets our notability standards – there is no risk that anyone would assume it to have its own category or that an article that belongs in such a theoretical category would even exist. Graham (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: User talk:Station1, User talk:IACOBVS, User talk:Walrasiad, User talk:Robertsky. Reason: Participated in the RM discussion. Graham (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Talk:Union Theological Seminary, WT:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, WT:WikiProject Columbia University, WT:WikiProject Higher education, WT:WikiProject New York (state), WT:WikiProject New York City, WT:WikiProject Reformed Christianity. Graham (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems most logical and within policy. Ergo Sum 20:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support based on the fact that the proposed names are currently redlinks and there is little likelihood of them becoming ambiguous among categories in the foreseeable future. Station1 (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC) <responding to ping>[reply]
  • Support per nom and for the above rationales stated. Disambiguation is not needed for these 3 articles per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. IACOBVS (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC) <responding to ping>[reply]
  • Comment: If not changed per proposed, then recommend changing to Category:Union Theological Seminary (New York) to shorten. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 6[edit]

Category:Sámi educators[edit]

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

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

Category:Ossetian male writers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Non-defining intersection between ethnicity, occupation, and gender. Mason (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; we already have similar categories of ethnciity/occuptation/gender, such as Category:African-American male writers, Category:Yoruba women writers, and Category:Basque women writers. Categorizing writers by gender and nationality is quite common as well; see Category:Male writers by nationality. ForsythiaJo (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths from food poisoning[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Conflict in naming conventions between Category:Deaths from digestive disease and Category:Deaths from infectious disease; and Category:Deaths by poisoning. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – I think we mostly use "deaths by" for intentional killings, "deaths from" or "deaths due to" where there was no intention. The current name seems to be natural English, but Category:Deaths due to food poisoning sounds OK as an alternative. – Fayenatic London 10:50, 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) 23:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Fayenatic. Split in intentional and unintentional deaths (discuss catnames). Food poisoning or foodborne illness is something which happens by accident, due to carelessness or lack of knowledge or diligence in preparing food before consuming it. I've never seen intentional killings described as "food poisoning", even if the method used was to poison someone's food (food or drink is by far the most common means of getting lethal poison into someone's body while covering the perpetrator's traces). It might be better to Rename to Category:Deaths from foodborne illnesses to align with the main article foodborne illness, and because the present continuous poisoning is ambiguous, as it can be both understood as passive (unintentional) and active (deliberate). It should then also be Re-parented to Category:Deaths from disease. However, for those deaths caused by intentionally poisoned foods or drinks, it might be better to create a separate category. Given sibling Category:Victims of intentional poisonings, I believe we need to have the word "intentional" in the catname, for clear distinction from foodborne illnesses. Something like Category:Deaths by intentional food poisonings? However we formulate it, I would recommend a Template:Category see also in the catdescs of both cats after the split to help readers and editors find what they are looking for. NLeeuw (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animated characters debuting in 1972[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Neither of the articles listed here are for fictional characters, but their television shows. I could not find any other entries for this category. If this category is kept, it should be at Category:Animated characters introduced in 1972 anyway. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actors by ethnicity[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content of these categories. The diffusing attribute is not these actors' ancestors but it is rather their own ethnicity. Also, this aligns with parent Category:People by occupation and ethnicity. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

French violinists by gender and century[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:NARROWCAT and WP:OCEGRS, narrow intersections with gender, for none of these categories there will be a topic article in its own right. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Goldey College football[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Category lacks subjects Let'srun (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Male fiddlers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. There is no need to merge somewhere, the subcategory is already in appropriate categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom without prejudice. NLeeuw (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2024 United States Libertarian presidential primaries[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only one page, doesn’t fit with similar category styles Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category level with only two subcategories each. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom without prejudice. NLeeuw (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Architects[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OCEPON. These categories only contain an eponymous article and a subcategory, so having the subcategory suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Whai players[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Whai (basketball) is now Tauranga Whai. I created the category when the team name did not have "Tauranga" in it. The team name is now officially "Tauranga Whai". DaHuzyBru (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, for consistency with main article's name (Tauranga Whai). Paora (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dual men's international footballers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: They are men's footballers who are dual internationals, the current order does not make grammatical sense. An alternative would be Dual internationalists (men's football), mirroring how the female players cat has been named‎ Crowsus (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative, similarity would be good, and I feel that the alternative fits it better. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 15:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative to match the women's naming. GiantSnowman 15:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anarchism task force participants[edit]

Nominator's rationale: It has been years since the anarchism taskforce of WikiProject Philosophy was expanded into its own dedicated WikiProject, but this category has yet to be updated to reflect that. This proposed move is a simple update to reflect the category's current use by WikiProject Anarchism. Grnrchst (talk) 08:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:18th-century German male violinists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I think we should broaden this category to include violinists of all genders. Non of the othe 18th-century violinists are diffused by gender and there isn't a 18th-century german violinists category. Mason (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and re-parent per nom, despite the fact that the French 18th-century violinists are also diffused by gender. It is rather the French males that should be upmerged. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and re-parent per nom without prejudice. NLeeuw (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Poisoned Romans[edit]

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

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

Category:American family lawyers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between occupation, type of law, and nationality. Lawyers are not typically defined by whether they practice family law. Similar to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_22#Category:Canadian_criminal_lawyers Mason (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tokyo Musashino United FC[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON * Pppery * it has begun... 00:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 5[edit]

Category:Film templates parameter issues[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This is a valid Wikiproject category that exists principally as a container for other Wikiproject tracking categories, but it's straying a bit from its stated purpose: not every category that's been filed here is tracking issues in the "something wrong here that needs to be fixed" sense, and instead some of them are just tracking usages without regard to any "issues". So genuine "issues" categories can be left here, but "usage" categories should be upmerged to the parent instead of being here. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The category trees of Template parameter issues by task and Template parameter issues by topic (which includes the nominated category Category:Film templates parameter issues) created by me in 2022 are named this way because of the original category Wikipedia template parameter issues. I too, at some point in this process, realized that some relevant categories are just for tracking/awareness, not for fixing issues. I wouldn't mind renaming the whole category tree into Wikipedia template tracking categories, Template tracking categories by task, and so on.
An alternative would be to make it an additional structure on top: Wikipedia template tracking categories could be the parent of Wikipedia template parameter issues, Template tracking categories by topic – parent of Template parameter issues by topic, and so forth. What do you think?
This is a much larger scope than the original nomination, let me know if you want to limit the discussion here to just the film-related categories. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 200#PetScan or DB query for categories exclusively in Category:Hidden categories and Category:Tracking categories. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot to ping Bearcat. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This category isn't being force-transcluded onto its contents via a template, but is just being generically declared as a conventional category declaration, so I'm not sure I see why this is a larger issue. We can just move things out of the category and up to the parent if they're not tracking issues, while leaving things that are tracking issues here, so I really don't grasp why we would need to complicate things by widening the net. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I support splitting and withdraw my proposal for expanding this nomination. I will wait until this nomination closes and try to implement Category:Template tracking categories by topic after that. —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American buskers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This was previously discussed and agreed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 31#Category:American buskers before it was suddenly moved back without any discussion. WP:ENGVAR allows us to use the American English term. Buskers is not a word generally used in the United States. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename in the spirit of WP:G4 but keep a redirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @QuietHere: as you listed this at WP:CFDS you might want to react as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I noted when I nominated this for a speedy move in January (see here), the relevant parent category is Category:Buskers by nationality, in which all other entries use that same word. I don't think it makes sense for just one category out of the tree to use different terminology, so I am opposed to this proposal as is. However, I would not oppose renaming the whole tree (and every other relevant category in the greater Category:Buskers tree) based on this given "busking" and "busker" are both redirects to street performance, and I would think it best for all categories to match with that. Plus, I would imagine "street performer" to be a better known, more readily understood, term than "busker". If you wish to extend this proposal to the whole tree, then I will gladly change my vote, but as is I think matching category names is ideal regardless of what terminology is in use. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Climbing books[edit]

Nominator's rationale: We should merge 'Climbing books' with 'Mountaineering books' to create 'Climbing and Mountaineering books' (as we have done with some other climbing and mountaineering categories like 'List of climbers and mountaineers'). It is not always appropriate to merge 'climbing' and 'mountaineering' but in this case it is not useful to split them as too many of the books include both topics. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged Category:Mountaineering books too. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional animals by taxon[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No reason has been given why this unnecessarily WP:NARROWCAT has been created. It only contains two taxons which is not enough to justify an entire separate category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Fictional animals by taxon, but merge Category:Fictional invertebrates and Category:Fictional vertebrates into Category:Fictional animals by taxon. AHI-3000 (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately doing that is just shuffling around deck chairs and makes no real difference. But I think the more longstanding categories (since 2006) should take precedence over your new 2024 category, not things be merged just because you want your category to be prominent. You have just stated an opinion but not provided a reason to back why taxon is better than the vertebrate/invertebrate split. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: My suggestion is to leave "Fictional animals by taxon" with 8 subcategories instead of 2, if your only argument is that it's too small right now. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the nominated and the alt proposal could be an improvement, but I prefer the alternative, in order to keep taxa together as a recognizable attrribute. I have tagged the two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: So do you support my suggestion? AHI-3000 (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cornish people by descent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Brazilian cuisine by region[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Tweaking category names to be more representative of their intended usage. As they stand currently, I believe that the categories could be misunderstood as not aligning with Brazil's official regions. I hope to remedy that with this change. BaduFerreira (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Sikh military[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Renaming (A) may be a good idea because of parents Category:Sikh Empire and Category:Military by former country, and siblings in Category:Military by former country. However, as @Marcocapelle pointed out at Speedy, this requires more discussion because there is lots of content in the category that pre-dates the Sikh Empire. Moreover, Dharamyudh (Sikhism) (an article I wrote some years ago) is a religious concept, and does not belong solely to the Sikh Empire as a state. Alternately, we could also decide that this is just an WP:ARBITRARYCAT that should be deleted (B). Also, I think that the two recently created children Category:Military units and formations of the Sikhs and Category:Wars involving the Sikhs may be WP:ARBITRARYCATs, which will also have to be renamed (A) or deleted (B). Category:Sikh warriors may be a valid category (if it passes WP:EGRS), but not all those within the military of the Sikh Empire were necessarily adherents of Sikhism, so unless renamed & rescoped, that subcategory should be removed from this tree. Please indicate your preference, as both seem workable solutions to the current issues. NLeeuw (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a difficult one, because the Sikhs dominated (parts of) Punjab, but did not have a consistent political structure in that region during the two centuries that this category tree is about. They did have military though, to defend their territories. The period covers the Early Mughal–Sikh wars until the Afghan–Sikh wars and it is only during the latter wars that there was first a Sikh Confederacy and later a Sikh Empire. Deletion or purging would certainly be counter-productive because it would arbitrarily break the military history of the region. At most diffuse by different periods. An alternative in a completely different direction is renaming to Category:Sikh military (1621–1849). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't think we should be categorising military history by religious denomination. That's kinda like creating Category:Anabaptist military and then throwing Münster rebellion and Anabaptist riot in there, as if those were carried out by the Armed Forces of the same "state". They weren't.
    We could split up by state, e.g. Category:Wars involving the Sikh Confederacy and Category:Wars involving the Sikh Empire. I would definitely support that. I could add that as Option C to the nom. NLeeuw (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The comparison with Anabaptists is unfair because the two articles you mentioned are situated at two different places and the Anabaptists held power in only one of them. Hypothetically, if they would have maintained longer in Münster, and if there they would have been called "the Anabaptists" by historians as belligerant in wars, then by all means Category:Anabaptist military would have been a valid category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it is fair, because as you mentioned, the Sikh Empire is a different state than the Sikh Confederacy, and formations such as the Akal Sena are even older, but did not yet have their own state; they were in rebellion against the Mughal Empire. (I suppose that's what you are referring to by your suggestion to start counting form 1621?).
      At any rate, we should avoid categorising military personnel by religion per WP:EGRS. A military or armed group is either always connected to a state, or usually intends to form its own state or quasi-state, and sometimes already operates a proto-state or quasi-state (even gangs and mafia can have territories of influence where they extract 'protection money', i.e. tribute). (It is for this reason that we have maintained Military personnel of Fooland rather than Military personnel from Fooland conventions; their service to Fooland defines them, not their birth or residence in Fooland).
      The Akal Sena was such a group, whose military aspects were defined by their loyalty to Guru Hargobind, and their pursuit to establish an independent Sikh state (the First Sikh State arose in 1709). The personal religious beliefs of the individual soldiers in the Akal Sena are WP:NONDEFINING for the group as a military force in service of a guru and a proto-state in the Punjab region. NLeeuw (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may have started as a rebellion, but so did the Dutch Republic which is in retrospect said to have started in the 1570s while it was only recognized by Spain in 1648. There is usually a grey area between rebellion and independence. For the Sikhs independence presumably started in 1606 with the Akal Takht and the first battle against the Mughal Empire taking place in 1621, the Battle of Rohilla. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also this follow up discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Category:Sikh warriors[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename and purge, in 1849 the Sikhs ceased to have power in Punjab, the Sikh Empire was merged into British India. The category also contains military personnel of India who happen to be Sikhs, e.g. Jagjit Singh Aurora, they should be purged as a matter of trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What do you think this category is supposed to contain right now? And what do you think the category should contain?
Because what I am seeing is an inappropriate intersection of the Category:People by nationality tree and the Category:People by religion tree
Category:People by nationality > Category:People by occupation and nationality > Category:Military personnel by nationality > Category:Warriors by nationality > Category:Indian warriors > Category:Sikh warriors
Category:People by religion > Category:People by religion and nationality > Category:Sikhs by nationality > Category:Indian Sikhs > Category:Sikh warriors
Even the Category:People by ethnicity tree is mixed up in it because of parent Category:Punjabi people, but that could easily be Purged.
The word "Sikh" thus acquires a double meaning, namely adherents of Sikhism and subjects of the Sikh Empire or Sikh Confederacy. As you noted, The category also contains military personnel of India who happen to be Sikhs, e.g. Jagjit Singh Aurora. Therefore, the current name is ambiguous. The renaming proposal will not resolve that ambiguity. If we are to identify them with the Sikh Empire as you mentioned in the rationale, then we should alt rename to Category:Military personnel of the Sikh Empire. This would be in line with my proposal A to rename the parent Category:Sikh military to Category:Military personnel of the Sikh Empire, with possibly a separate category for Category:Military personnel of the Sikh Confederacy. NLeeuw (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Oh I see you already created Category:Military personnel of the Sikh Empire as a subcategory of Category:Sikh warriors 3 days ago. Shall we also create Category:Military personnel of the Sikh Confederacy and diffuse the rest? NLeeuw (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the proposal my response is predictable: I think the category is supposed to contain Sikh warriors while the Sikhs were self-governing, i.e. governing the Punjab region in which they were in the majority. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote: there wasn't really any such thing as military personnel of the Sikh Confederacy since the military was primarily organized per member state. They just joined forces upon need. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
while the Sikhs were self-governing, i.e. governing the Punjab region in which they were in the majority. I'm afraid that is an WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Political and military control over an area never perfectly coincides with the area where a certain ethnic, linguistic, religious etc. group lives or lived. That is the fiction of the modern nation-state, that you can have population and state borders coincide. E.g. there never was a time when all inhabitants of the "Netherlands" were "Dutch" by ethnicity, language, nationality or whatever, nor did they ever all adhere to exactly the same religion. Crosscats of people by nationality, by religion, by ethnicity and by language are always inappropriate for that reason.
If confederacies / confederations do not have military personnel, how come we've got: Category:Confederate States of America military personnel, Category:Swiss military personnel by century before 1848 (when Switzerland transformed from a confederation to a federation) etc.? Besides, there is an article about Dal Khalsa (Sikh Army). NLeeuw (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is more than likely that the area that the Sikhs controlled did not exactly match with the spread of their religion. But that does not matter for the articles which are clearly about Sikh warriors defending their territories. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote: Category:16th-century Swiss military personnel is vague enough about how the military is organized, just like Category:Sikh warriors. It is not Category:16th-century military personnel of the Swiss Confederacy. On the other hand the Confederate States of America never seem to have had separate armies per state. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now without prejudice. Template:Campaignbox Moldavian campaign of Tymofiy Khmelnytsky indicates that this category could include up to 8 articles, but only 3 of them have been written so far, and they are fine to leave in the parent category for now. NLeeuw (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: An argument could be made to merge Template:Campaignbox Moldavian campaign of Tymofiy Khmelnytsky to Template:Campaignbox Khmelnytsky Uprising for now as well, but that's beyond the scope of CFD. NLeeuw (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paintings of Hebrew Bible themes[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, a split between Hebrew Bible and Old Testament does not make too much sense in biblical art which largely originates from Christianity. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge, Hebrew Bible is the main tree here. NLeeuw (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a "main" tree per se. Old Testament is different (order of bible books), broader (with deuterocanonical books) and more applicable to topics that are more exclusively associated with Christianity. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether deuterocanonical books are included depends entirely on denomination. "Hebrew Bible" is the name for the 39 books common to Judaism and Christianity, and I see no reason why Christianity should be regarded as more important.
    On second thought, it might be better to upmerge Category:Paintings based on the Old Testament to its parents, as it is currently a mostly redundant layer. How does that sound? NLeeuw (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re "Whether deuterocanonical books are included depends entirely on denomination", as things stand the "deuterocanonical books" category is within the "Old Testament" one, so isn't this an argument against the status quo as well? But it's resolved if Category:Paintings based on the Old Testament is upmerged to its parents, leaving the subdivisions of the (Christian) Bible as "Hebrew Bible", "deuterocanonical books" and "New Testament" – with no "Old Testament"? I hope I've got that right. Ham II (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Willesden Cemetery[edit]

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

Category:Australian business executives by industry[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful for navigation to only have one category in here. Mason (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian mining entrepreneurs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: overlapping category. Also there's no Category:Mining entrepreneurs (which suggests that this tree is probably also redundant) Mason (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
support - good points made - however for the record - despite the fact that in the Australian context an entrepreneur tends to infer an investor/wealthy person, whereas businessperson includes and infers potentially management level - the lack of mining entrepeneurs as a tree seems to deny the universal phenomenon, which is extensive. JarrahTree 07:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
indifferent - closer examination - the specific article exists, and the separation between magnate/business person is clearly made at the head of the category - whereas the american mining business people conflates the issue by having text inside the main page Magnates of the mining industry. The conflation is unhelpful and combines the entrepreneurs and the rest. A merge will simply make a mess. JarrahTree 08:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the content of this category is a conflation anyway, with many articles about upper management level. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish communities destroyed in the Holocaust[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Disclaimer: I would like to say that this is a sensitive topic that should not be treated lightly. I am going to make some observations that seek to address what I see as inappropriate categorisation practices, but I thereby do not seek to deny or diminish or trivialise the severity of The Holocaust. That said: I think this is an WP:ARBITRARYCAT that should be listified, and every entry supported by WP:RS.
Detailed explanation
Firstly: We cannot say that a city or town, which had at some point a "Jewish community" (something which should also be properly defined first in terms of numbers and characteristics) living in it, should in its entirety be included in this category. The precedent Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 27#Category:Hungarian communities in Slovakia comes to mind: a minority community within a populated place or administrative region cannot be WP:DEFINING for the identity of that place or region as a whole. This is a wider issue within the Category:Historic Jewish communities in Europe tree, but also in similar category trees of "communities" that categorise entire places or regions based on a minority of ethnic group X living within its borders.
Secondly, what exactly "destroyed" means is also not clear, as there have also been many Holocaust survivors. Is a "community" only destroyed when 100% of its members did not survive the Holocaust, or is 90% enough? I'm sorry if that seems like a strange or inappropriate question, but it is one we need to ask to avoid having arbitrary percentages, and thus WP:ARBITRARYCATs. It is the same reason why we can't have Category:Fooian-speaking countries just because, say, more than 50% of inhabitants in country X speaks Fooian, because '50%' is arbitrary. (So I had those categories all renamed last year as well).
What "destroyed" means exactly may also vary. A few years ago, there was a long dispute on Dutch Wikipedia about "List of castles destroyed by the French during the Franco-Dutch War" (it had many different titles, all of which were quite arbitrary and untenable; link: nl:Wikipedia:Te beoordelen pagina's/Toegevoegd 20201103#Lijst van kastelen in Nederland, die door de Fransen rond 1672 of 1794 verwoest zijn). There, it turned out that some castles were rather "damaged" than "destroyed", or "demolished" outside of combat, and that a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH was involved in developing the list. Like this category, that list mostly sought to highlight and quantify the extent of the destruction wrought by a group of perpetrators, but failed to properly define what it was exactly about. "Community" is an even vaguer concept than "castle", and how one can "destroy a community" is really a question I would rather like to leave up to sociologists than us category Wikipedians.
If we listify this category, we could at least provide reliable sources in which scholars explain what they mean; categories cannot do that for us. NLeeuw (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the category contains articles about current-day European cities and towns rather than articles about pre-1945 Jewish communities. No objection against listification per se, but I think this task is far too big for someone to start with on a short term. The category content may be listed at the talk page of a relevant WikiProject before deletion, for someone, or maybe for multiple editors together, to start listifying in their own pace. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like a good idea. Perhaps the creator @Eladkarmel is willing to do so? NLeeuw (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These populated places are not notable for being Jewish communities. Dimadick (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not enough commentary on the proposal to listify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick Do you support the proposal to listify before deleting? NLeeuw (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only if there are enough independent sources for such a list. Dimadick (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect there are plenty of libraries full of sources writing about this. But as Marco said, documenting and verifying all that takes a lot of time, so it would probably be best to list the content on a relevant WikiProject talk page. I think the most appropriate would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history. NLeeuw (talk) 21:31, 7 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"