Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 ~~~~

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 07:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 139 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).

 – C2C: Parent/Grandparent is Category:Vatican City people by occupation, and the norm is Vatican City FOO Mason (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed requests

[edit]
  • None currently

On hold pending other discussion

[edit]

Moved to full discussion

[edit]

Current discussions

[edit]
Shortcut

July 22

[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit]

Category:History of the foreign relations of Estonia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Due to the article Ukraine Compact, user:Stickhandler has massively created one-member cats. To be upmerged to e.g. "Category:Foreign relations of Foo country" Estopedist1 (talk) 06:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Affected are:

--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Central Greece

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SHAREDNAME. Central Greece (region) is the modern administrative region (Περιφέρεια perifereia) established in 1987. Central Greece (geographic region) is the historic geographical region (γεωγραφικό διαμέρισμα geografiko diamerisma) abolished in 1987. I have WP:BOLDly renamed Central Greece (an WP:UNSOURCED article) to Central Greece (geographic region), and turned Central Greece into a DP, hoping to clarify the situation. Splitting the category is the next logical step. Child categories can be renamed if so desired per WP:C2C once this split is approved. NLeeuw (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is too simplistic a solution for a complex problem. I'll illustrate the problem with maps:
If we want this category to be only about the modern administrative region (perifereia) of Central Greece, it's not just about removing Attica, it is also removing parts of Western Greece, removing the northeast coast of the Pelopponese (or not?), removing Kythira (or not?), but adding Skyros (or not?), and so on. NLeeuw (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I nominated grandchild Category:Battles in Central Greece for renaming to Category:Military history of Central Greece. Under my current splitting proposal, that renaming proposal remains unaffected. But if we want to avoid the Lorraine problem, as in previous "Battles in" discussions, it might have to be renamed to Category:Military history of Central Greece (region) later on. My splitting proposal was designed mostly to solve that potential Lorraine problem ahead of time, but I guess it doesn't really matter, as we can always C2C it later. NLeeuw (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcocapelle, Nederlandse Leeuw, do you have a compromise here? — Qwerfjkltalk 19:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure Marcocapelle understood what I was proposing, and why. I was hoping for others to weigh in, but nobody else seems to care. NLeeuw (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nederlandse Leeuw: the proposal is to create a category for the former definition of Central Greece, next to a category of the current definition of Central Greece. I think that this is just confusing. We do not usually split geography categories by former borders. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless the category for the former definition of Central Greece contains purely historical contents, to which the modern definition would not apply. NLeeuw (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clear old CfD log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional robbers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There is very little to distinguish thieves from robbers, both of which have the exact same connotation with one being a subgroup of the other. Given the huge overlap, given that many fictional thieves also engage in robbery, this newly created category should be merged back as overcategorization. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scottish noblewomen

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I think we should rename and purge this category to mirror British women by rank and English women by rank Mason (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Artists from New Spain

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non of the people in here are described as being New Spanish. I think that this kind of category could work as a parent/container category, but I don't see how it's helpful to bundle such disparate people together Mason (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American high school teachers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Do we really need to diffuse by level of educator? Do we have middle school, elementary school? This just doesn't need to be very defining Mason (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Land agents

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Newly created category containing 1 eponymous article and 1 "land agent" Gjs238 (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Los Angeles Knight Riders

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Newly created category containing 1 article. Gjs238 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per C2F. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's no article attached in that category Wowlastic10 (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comparative theology

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Newly created category containing 1 article. Gjs238 (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1805 in Germany

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge similar to all years up to 1804. The Holy Roman Empire was disestablished in 1806. It is a bit confusing because the Austrian Empire was established two years earlier, in 1804. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:1805 establishments in Germany.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages using new version of Template EstcatCountry

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: No longer necessary: all pages use the new version of {{EstcatCountry}}. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Category:Pages using old version of Template EstcatCountry was speedy deleted per G8 in September 2023. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA University and College Divisions, 1956 to 1961

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 27#1956 NCAA College Division football season, research determined that the NCAA University Division and NCAA College Division were not applied to football until 1962. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duchy of Lucca year categories

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Massive tree for two articles (Lucca railway station and Luccan lira) which is unhelpful for navigation. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The Duchy of Lucca was a small Italian state that existed from 1815 to 1847. Both articles are in other appropriate establishment and Lucca-related subcategories than the ones included here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


July 21

[edit]

Category:Lists of tennis commentators

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article in the category, upmerge to the parent category. Let'srun (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German Confederation

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename, there was no unified German country until 1871. The German Confederation (1815-1866) was a loose connection of independent states which also included Austria and Bohemia. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is follow-up on this earlier discussion, @PearlyGigs and Fayenatic london: pinging contributors to this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish American slave owners

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge per previous precedent here Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Marcocapelle and @Smasongarrison from previous Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison, there were a few which weren't but I've added them to the appropriate subcats of Category:American Jews. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Mason (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish businesspeople

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: My speedy delete nomination was declined [2] (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_8) because there have been more recent mixed opinions of the intersection of being Jewish and several occupations (e.g., Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_14#Category:Jewish_merchants; Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_August_29#Category:Jewish_sportspeople; link:for a search of CFDS with the word Jewish, sorted by most recent);Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_12#Category:Jewish_British_slave_owners). I think that this category is problematic under WP:EGRS given that it is primarily based on a stereotype rather than a defining intersection. I recall that several business-related child categories have been deleted over the same concern. (I think that Jewish Bankers is an exception because of the historical context of banking in Europe being a non-Christian occupation because of usury) Mason (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omnis Scientia, do you remember with business occupations were recently deleted? (My brain is telling me that you were in those conversations.)Mason (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison, no I wasn't but I would say this one should be deleted. A lot of Jewish businesspeople, historically speaking, so WP:EGRS applies. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! (Lol, my bad. I should clearly stop listening to my brain 🤣 for advice!) Mason (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fire temples

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, 1 and 2 members respectively. Both were created by an editor who was subsequently blocked for WP:SOCKING. – Fayenatic London 14:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Korean women independence activists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I'm the creator of the category now on an IP. I originally created the cat under the target name, but it was speedy renamed a while back. I think the new name is either incorrect or confusingly worded. My original scope for the category was "Women who advocated for Korea's independence", not "Korean women who advocated for independence". There were several non-Korean women in the category at time of renaming. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison Courtesy tagging the prev renamer; please lmk if my interpretation of the new name is incorrect 104.232.119.107 (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename and Propose splitting to Korean women independence activists and Women activists for Korean independence. Clearly, the original name was confusing as it could be interpretated as either. Mason (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support this proposal. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For foreign activists, why would we make a distinction by gender? Marcocapelle (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Marco makes a good point. I am not familiar with the literature/history of women's activism on this issue. IP, can you point to literature on this subject? Either way, I think that "Activists for Korean independence" is clearer.Mason (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a newbie to category naming discussions, so not sure what kind of info is helpful. My quick hand count on South Korea's database of activists who received awards has 7 female non-Korean activists for Korean independence, although I know of maybe 1-2 others who haven't received awards and the number keeps expanding. For foreign activists for Korean independence of any gender, there are around 70-90ish commonly recognized I think. I'd prefer a single category for women activists for Korean independence of any nationality and not a split.
    Also, I'm not sure how much WP:COMMONNAME is typically weighed for categories. "Activists for Korean independence" is a less common wording than "Korean independence activist" [3], although it is possibly clearer. SK has an "independence activist of the month" program [4]. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles of the Venetian–Genoese wars

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(first war) Category:War of Saint Sabas‎ (1 C, 10 P)
(second war) Category:War of Curzola‎ (1 C, 3 P)
(fourth war) (Category:War of Chioggia‎ (1 C, 3 P)
If we upmerge as proposed, then we'll have these battles grouped both in Category:Venetian–Genoese wars and in these 3 subcategories. Per WP:DIFFUSE, that's not very practical. Would it be worth upmerging those subcategories as well to avoid duplication? Aside from the battles and the main articles of the 1st, 2nd and 4th war, the only other contents are "People of the Xth war" subcategories, which we've also already covered in Category:People of the Venetian–Genoese wars. In short, there's a lot of duplication going on here. I'm not sure which solution I would find most elegant, but I'm considering this alt proposal:
Might this work better than the proposal of nom? NLeeuw (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of Great Britain by period

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, presumably the consequence of the deletion of Category:History of Great Britain in this earlier discussion is that its subcategories should also be deleted. I will follow up with decades and years later.
@Omnis Scientia, Ham II, Johnbod, Nederlandse Leeuw, and PearlyGigs: pinging participants to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with Category:History of Great Britain was the scope (the period 1707–1800, which made it indistinguishable from the scope of Category:Kingdom of Great Britain); in my opinion it should be recreated, with the scope being the history of the island. Ham II (talk) 10:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. I don't think re-creating the category will solve the underlying problem. The comparison with Category:History of Ireland is tempting, but I think the island of Ireland can much more easily be taken as a scope, as both the Republic and Northern Ireland are relatively recent phenomena that lead to few ambiguities for categorisation.
Perhaps we should first delete the 19th, 20th and 21st-century categories and go from there? NLeeuw (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should immediately delete the 19th, 20th and 21st century ones which have no articles and only the requisite English, Scottish, and Welsh sub-categories. PearlyGigs (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be rather artificial if a category tree for the island ended in the 18th century. Could there be a "United Kingdom > Great Britain > England, Scotland and Wales" (plus "Ireland (1801–1923)" and "Northern Ireland", as appropriate) structure for the 19th century onwards? Ham II (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cathedrals in Baku

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, Category:Cathedrals in Azerbaijan is otherwise nearly empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Catholic churches

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, mostly just one or two articles per category, merging them facilitates navigating to more church articles more easily. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Oriental Orthodox monasteries in Azerbaijan

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary layer. Contains Armenian Apostolic sub-cat, and 1 page Yerits Mankants Monastery which says it was affiliated with Armenian Apostolic Church. Move page into subcat and upmerge. The other parent Category:Oriental Orthodox monasteries by country already holds the subcat via Category:Armenian Apostolic monasteries by country, so a dual merge is not needed. – Fayenatic London 08:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


July 20

[edit]

Pre-statehood Colorado categories

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: If kept, rename to Foo in Colorado Territory because Colorado did not become a state until 1876. However, a single-redirect category is not helpful for navigation. Merge to Category:1874 in Colorado Territory, and redirect Category:1874 in Colorado to Category:1874 in Colorado Territory as a {{R from category navigation}}. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 20:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Homosexual concentration camp survivors

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I think we should rename this category to use the more inclusive and commonly used term of LGBT. The rename would also be more consistent with the other Nazi era category (Category:LGBT people in the Nazi Party‎) Mason (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri elections before Missouri was a state

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: If kept, rename all to Foo in Missouri Territory because Missouri was not a state yet. However, a tree entirely composed of single-redirect categories is not helpful for navigation, and should be merged to the respective "[Year] in Missouri Territory" categories. (Category:1814 Missouri elections has two redirects, but the principle stands.) Delete two other categories which will become empty once all of their children categories are merged. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 20:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Washington (state) categories

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: First, Washington (state) did not become a state until 1889, so these categories are redundant to the corresponding Washington Territory. However, this entire mini-tree is just to categorize two redirects, so we only need to move them the appropriate "[Year] in Washington Territory" categories and delete the tree. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 19:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parks and lakes in Jakarta

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Badly-named category that crosses two different types of things. No other category for either parks or lakes anywhere else in the world merges the two things into one shared category, and there's no reason why Jakarta's parks and lakes would have a uniquely Jakarta-specific need for different handling from everywhere else. In fact, this was originally at just "parks", and then got moved to this divergent name several years ago without any particular explanation given as to why such a thing would have been needed. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri Territory

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Missouri did not exist until 1821; beforehand, it was the Missouri Territory. Merge to reflect this, and keep redirects as {{R from template-generated category}}s {{R from category navigation}}. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 14:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC) (corrected rcat at 20:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Category:LGBT men artists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Moving to [full]. Norm is "Male artists". For the record, the speedy rename was supported by the category creator. @MikutoH and Marcocapelle: discussants. Mason (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Princes in Germany

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename for clarification that it is not about people after World War I, and to align with Category:People from the German Empire. Also check entries manually: if they do not belong here, they are likely to belong in Category:Princes of the Holy Roman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. ETA: Also support purge. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, shouldn't there be one for the German Confederation era between the Holy Roman Empire and German Empire? Just a thought. I know there was a brief North German Confederation but that was essentially a brief version of what became the united German Empire. The main big one was between the two empires was the German Confederation. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom SFBB (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dutch princes

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: this previous discussion was about Fooian princes or princes of Foo, but we certainly do not need them both. Purge entries that aren't about princes in the Netherlands and merge the two categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omnis Scientia, SFBB, and Hey man im josh: pinging contributors to previous discussion. See also discussion right above this one. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. ETA: also support purge. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom SFBB (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pig breeds originating from Indigenous Americans

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, one-article categories are not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Breeds originating from Indigenous Americans

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I also think the current category name is confusing/hard to parse. Mason (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Multiple citizenship

[edit]
Option A: rename Category:Multiple citizenship to Category:Multiple nationality.
OR: option B: rename Category:People with multiple nationality to Category:People with multiple citizenship.
Rationale: consistency. Until other arguments weigh in, option B is the preferred option per article title Multiple citizenship. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philippine Sports Commission

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Unneeded eponymous category that contains nothing apart from the main article. Paul_012 (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: In light of the population of the category since the nomination, I'm willing to withdraw my nomination (though it should continue as there has also been another delete !vote). --Paul_012 (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At the time of nominate, indeed the category contained only the eponymous article. I have since added applicable entries to the category. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pyramids and bipyramids

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: These are two different classes of shapes that shouldn't be lumped together. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tamil priests

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I think we should broaden the category to all clergy rather than the narrower priests. (I am not opposed to upmerging for now, given that this category has only one person in it) Mason (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD topic-sorting subcategories

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I originally brought this up here and nobody seemed to have any objection to moving forward or any reason why these are still useful, so here we are.
These categories are redundant to deletion sorting, which provides much more fine-grained sorting and is built in to scripts such as Twinkle. Their utility was clear in the past before deletion sorting became both commonplace and simple to do, but now they are just an unneeded extra step in the process. It is my guess that the only reason they are still in use is that these same tools require it as part of the nomination process. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no archive for closed discussions in these categories. They also overlap in scope, and their format does not support the overlap, unlike delsort. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is my understanding that any given deletion discussion may appear on more than one category page. If this is correct, then the overlap makes topics relevant to one's interest and expertise easier to find. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beşiktaş J.K. players

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This should be an intermediate layer in Category:Beşiktaş J.K., not a disambig category. This football club has several branches for other sports. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dominican Republic people of European American descent

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Weird and confusing name. Looking at the content of this category, it seems that this is not intended for Dominicans with ancestry in the U.S., as the parent categories would indicate, (for which we have Dominican Republic people of American descent) but in fact Dominicans from the local population of largely colonial European background, which is called the White Dominicans. José Ignacio Paliza is an example of that. Deletion is also an option. Place Clichy (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 June 6
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 21:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am going to ping all of the participants at the DRV thread.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above dicussion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery, Iñaki Salazar, Marcocapelle, SportingFlyer, Extraordinary Writ, Stifle, Polygnotus, and Alalch E.: please share your thoughts. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks for the ping. I have shared my thoughts here but I will repost them here for convenience:
Why should Wikipedia categorize people based on their ancestry? We don't know the ancestry of 99% of BLP subjects. For example, Category:Dominican Republic people of African American descent contains Max Puig who is also in the category Category:Dominican Republic people of Italian descent. But he is also in Dominican Republic people of Catalan descent, Dominican Republic people of Haitian descent, People of Ligurian descent, Dominican Republic people of Dutch descent and Dominican Republic people of Turks and Caicos Islands descent... Who gives a shit? We should remove this information about non-notable people. Do we really want to list everyone's ancestry for thousands of generations until everyone is from Africa? This obsession is unhealthy and insane. We have no reliable sources that give detailed information on the ancestry of anyone alive today, unless perhaps if you are a Habsburger or similar (and even in that case we only know a fragment). It is weird and potentially offensive to label people incorrectly based on flimsy evidence, notoriously unreliable amateur genealogical research and looks. Why do we not require sources for categorization? Just categorize people on their nationality/nationalities if there are reliable sources. Polygnotus (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


July 19

[edit]

Category:Worms (series)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I couldn't just wait to delete it. I already moved all the subcategories to the other one. "Worms (series)" LITTERALLY only contains the main topic article, you will have to rename "Worms (series) games" to "Worms (series)" after. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Games by genre

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The categories for non-electronic games only consider "genres" as games by a certain topic and not by their mechanics or structure, unlike the video games by genre category. Perhaps we could rename all these categories to be analogous with the video game genres category. But we might need to rename "Games by type" to "Games by genre" in turn. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Armenian Apostolic churches in Nakhchivan

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Armenian buildings in Azerbaijan

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NPOV, this resembles Category:Buildings and structures in the Republic of Artsakh that was just deleted. Note that three articles are in Category:Armenian Apostolic churches in Azerbaijan which is not a problematic category because it refers to denomination rather than to country/nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Racially motivated violence against white people in Africa

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Most of these articles are about anti-colonial or anti-settler violence. They cannot and should not be conflated with racially motivated violence in other contexts. User:Namiba 16:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Professional wrestling in Cleveland

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: An unnecessary category as all articles are in Category:Professional wrestling shows in Cleveland User:Namiba 16:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flags of Manchukuo

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category contains only one page and is unlikely to have a scope broader than that one page. Reconrabbit 13:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mathrubhumi Film Award winners

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This alleged award is mentioned in only two of the articles in this category. Neither mention cites a reliable source. I find no English-language evidence that this award exists. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths from diabetes

[edit]
Option A: rename Category:Deaths from diabetes to Category:Diabetes-related deaths as deaths are usually not directly caused by diabetes itself but rather by complications related to diabetes.
Option B: delete Category:Deaths from diabetes as a too indiscriminate characteristic. We do not even have Category:People with diabetes.
Once there is sufficient initial support for option A or B I will add the subcategories to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support A option because the deaths are usually from complications. I Oppose B's reasoning. You can have a cause of death that is defining, even if the category of people with the condition isn't. See Category:Deaths from poliomyelitis(defining), Category:People with polio (non-defining), and Category:Polio survivors(defining).Mason (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ape Escape games

[edit]
  • Propose merge
Merge Category:Ape Escape games into Category:Ape Escape
Nominator's rationale Parent category is too small in scope to warrant a subcategory, I believe it should be merged but it might be fiercely contested. MimirIsSmart (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Racially motivated violence against Europeans

[edit]
  • Propose renaming:
Category:Racially motivated violence against white Europeans to Category:Racially motivated violence against white people in Europe
Category:Racially motivated violence against black Europeans to Category:Racially motivated violence against black people in Europe
Nominator's rationale: The first of these categories formerly included violence against white colonialists in Asia or the Americas, which isn't really comparable to anti-white attacks in Europe. I felt that (following the example of Category:Racially motivated violence against white people in Africa that it was more appropriate to subcategorize by location of the attacks, rather than by the origin of the victims.
In addition, these categories already seems to be subcategories of Category:Racially motivated violence in Europe, strengthening the case that they ought to be subcategories by location. GCarty (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support in spirit, but instead of white people/black people. It should be Category:Racially motivated violence in CONTINENT against people of African descent to make it clearer that the location and descent are easier to distinguish. Mason (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


July 18

[edit]

Category:Fictional characters who use magic

[edit]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: I think this is long overdue. The reason I'm suggesting this is because of the precedent established by the renaming of multiple other categories about characters with various superpowers, including:
So you get where I'm going with this right? "Fictional magicians" just sounds better than "Fictional characters who use magic", and for these renamed subcategories the new names will be shorter and more concise. AHI-3000 (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games about crime

[edit]
Propose renaming Category:Video games about crime to Category:Crime video games
Nominator's rationale: This category is now a subcategory of Category:Video games by narrative genre. For the sake of consistency with other subcats in this category, it should be renamed with the subject up front instead of "Video games about...". This also makes it consistent with other medium subcategories listed at Category:Crime fiction (such as Category:Crime films and Category:Crime novels). AHI-3000 (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games about the military

[edit]
Propose renaming Category:Video games about the military to Category:Military and war video games
Nominator's rationale: This category is now a subcategory of Category:Video games by narrative genre. For the sake of consistency with other subcats in this category, it should be renamed with the subject up front instead of "Video games about...". Besides, this is new name would just roll off the tongue better IMO. AHI-3000 (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sailing simulators

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Practically the same thing, desired target category also only contains 2 articles. So this makes perfect sense. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom AHI-3000 (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dutch people of the Eighty Years' War (Spanish Empire)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: From the category description this is supposed to be for Dutch people who served the Spanish Empire during the Eight Years War. The current name doesn't convey that's the relationship.

I don't have a good rename suggestion, but I think the current version is confusing. Mason (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Worms (series) games

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I previously nominated this category but I removed for some reason, but I'm doing it again, the parent category "Worms (series)" only contains the main subject, and "Worms (series) games" contains 27 articles. So This makes the category 100% useless. We usually only categorize video game franchises like this if there is a significant amount of content related to the franchise, other than individual games.

We also have to move all subcategories in this category to the desired parent category first (I think).

QuantumFoam66 (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom AHI-3000 (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not something to support. It for some reason wasn't the way I was supposed to do it. Aparently I had to do it the other way around. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aztec scholars

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per the category description, this category is for scholars of the Aztec people, rather than Aztec people who are scholars. I think we should rename it to make that distinction clearer. Mason (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Futurama films

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to its subcategory about season 5. This also categorizes categories with categories in a way that is likely better served by categorizing individual articles. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this does seem rather redundant considering that the category for Season 5 covers all the exact same articles. AHI-3000 (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Broken Sword games

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Same logic with Monkey Island. The parent category currently contains only 2 articles. And if we merge, we'll get a total of just 9 articles. It makes navigation easier, but we also have to move all of this category's subcategories manually, because the bot doesn't do that. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monkey Island games

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category is small, and its parent category contains only 2 subcategories and 4 (3 now i think) articles. If we merged this with the other category it would make navigation easier, but we've got to add all categories to the parent category too, maybe I can just do that right now. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, there's no reason to keep this category separate, especially because this franchise only seems to have video games but no other notable works in other media. AHI-3000 (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also nominated "Broken Sword games" as well as Worms series games QuantumFoam66 (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Therapy 2093

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: With one album already appropriately categorized in Category:Therapy 2093 albums and the only article related to the musician, this eponymous category is unnecessary per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sultans of Bijapur

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The article of the higher level cat, Adil Shahi dynasty, was moved to Sultanate of Bijapur, of which there is already a higher level cat for, (or will be soon when CFDS renames Category:Bijapur Sultanate to Category:Sultanate of Bijapur) so this category should be merged with Category:Adil Shahi dynasty, as right now the higher up cat serves no purpose if it does not include the members of the dynasty, which are included here. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prehistory by country

[edit]
  • A: Prehistoric Fooland, or
  • B: Prehistory of Fooland?
Nominator's rationale: Numerically, I do not see a major preference in catnames or main article titles, so a speedy rename per WP:C2C or WP:C2D will probably not apply, and we should have a full discussion. As this is an (indirect) follow-up to our recent CFR on Middle Ages by country (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 11#Middle Ages by country), which resulted in a Rename all to Medieval history of Fooland, this precedent would favour option B. But the almost equally high frequency of Prehistoric Fooland including in main article titles should be taken into account. (A case could even be made that a debate should be had on which way WP:TITLECON should lean in the mainspace before we make our decision here, but we didn't do that for Middle Ages by country either). Whichever option we decide, I recommend leaving a redirect for all categories that we decide to rename, just like last time, in order to ease navigation and editing, and prevent duplication. NLeeuw (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to participants of previous discussion: @Marcocapelle, Smasongarrison, Ham II, Omnis Scientia, and HouseBlaster: for your consideration. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A: Prehistoric Fooland Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, why is that your preference? NLeeuw (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The easiest way to have a consistent naming scheme for all periods would be to have Prehistory of / Ancient history of / Medieval history of / Early modern history of / Modern history of / Contemporary history of Fooland, as I've argued previously. We've begun to move in that direction for medieval and early modern history.

    As NLeeuw rightly notes, though, we haven't really considered consistency with article titles in mainspace for those moves. If we did have mass RMs for the country articles in each of these categories, we might find it being argued that there should be consistency with the article titles Prehistory, Ancient history, Middle Ages, Early modern period, Modern era (which currently has an active RM for moving the title to Modern period edit on 20 July: now closed as no consensus) and Contemporary history. (There are corresponding category names for all of these, with one exception: Category:Modern history.) That could then result in a naming scheme (for article titles at first) of Prehistory of Fooland / Ancient history of Fooland / Fooland in the Middle Ages / Fooland in the early modern period / Fooland in the modern era or Fooland in the modern period or Modern history of Fooland (only the third of these seems very satisfactory to me) / Contemporary history of Fooland.

    With both those possible naming schemes in mind, I'm leaning towards B: Prehistory of Fooland. But it might be better to test the waters first with a mass RM for all articles following whichever of these two styles we think it would be better to change: Prehistoric [place – not necessarily a country] (examples here) or Prehistory of [place] (examples here). If a preference emerged for Prehistoric Fooland over Prehistory of Fooland it wouldn't be a disaster for the naming schemes I've suggested above, as prehistory could be treated as being outside history, which it is. Ham II (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would lean B because it matches the pattern in the previous Cfd. Both are fine, ultimately, though. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak preference for option B, ultimately they are both well acceptable and it only matters that we are consistent. But given the outcome of the previous discussion it makes sense that we continue along the same line. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B for consistency with the history categories, which is the only possible way I can think of distinguishing the two options. – Joe (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As nom, I should add that the rationale for the previous CfR applies even more strongly here: none of these countries existed as such in prehistoric times. Saying "Prehistoric United States" or "Prehistoric Dominican Republic" is nonsensical, as "states" and "republics" didn't exist, let alone those with the names we know them by today. But "Prehistory of United States" works perfectly well, linguistically speaking, because it literally means "the time before the United States existed", although more specifically "the time before written cultures existed on the territory of the current United States". (This was less of a problem in the previous CfR, where we could argue "Medieval France" and "Medieval England" were already a thing, though many other countries not yet, so we still went with Medieval history of Fooland to be on the safe side). This accuracy argument is more important to me than the consistency argument (but not necessarily decisive). NLeeuw (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Prehistory of the United States", which is already the category name, but otherwise I fully agree. Ham II (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Year by category — used with year parameter(s) equals year in page title

[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: nomination merged to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 13#Category:Year by category — used with year parameter(s) ≠ year in page title
Nominator's rationale: Better grammar; see . Courtesy pings to @Fayenatic london and LaundryPizza03. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:47, 18 July 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.


Establishments in German cities by year

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There is scope for growth in century categories, but year categories are not justified here. – Fayenatic London 11:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some categories were not tagged; I will do so. If there are no further comments in a week, I would close this as merge/rename/delete as nominated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


July 17

[edit]

Category:American women artists of Chinese descent

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I don't see why we need to have an intersection with gender*occupation*Indian/Chinese descent. Male and women artists are non-diffusiong. Mason (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scottish emigrants to the Tsardom of Russia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: 3x merge for now, this is a very narrow intersection that's not needed for diffusion Mason (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge to the first two merge targets, a one-article category is not helpful for navigation. I am in doubt about the third merge target because there wasn't a Great Britain or United Kkngdom yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:City founders from the Tsardom of Russia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. These categories are underpopulated, and don't help navigation with the same individual person in them. Mason (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indonesian women religious leaders

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer merge for now. (And nuns are religious works, not leaders) Mason (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Funeral and burial of Abraham Lincoln

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: These are venues associated with the funeral of Lincoln. Other than the article, the only ones related to Lincoln's funeral are his burial ground and the catafalque which should be moved to Category:Abraham Lincoln. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated places disestablished in New Brunswick in 2023

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: All of these relate to a single government reform in this year. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Registrars of the Order of the Garter

[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the category.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say delete per WP:NONDEF. Its notable to be a Knight or Lady of the Garter but not a register or registrar. I can't even find out if its even a position. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Ohio Conference football templates

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The American Mideast Conference last sponsored football in 1970 when the conference was known as the Mid-Ohio Conference. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:First women admitted to degrees at Oxford

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: While notable interesting, I'd say this is trivial. Perhaps Listify. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Models from London by borough

[edit]
merging categories
Nominator's rationale: Merge/Delete per WP:OCLOCATION Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Religion in China Redux

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The rationale given by Marcocapelle for the previous CFD back in May:

"in" is an odd preproposition in relation to a dynasty, "under" or "during" makes more sense.

This is usually the case, but as regards China X dynasty is the most common and natural form in English for the name of the state itself. Per the standard for analogous categories, e.g. Category:Religion in the Byzantine Empire, I think reassuming the previous pattern would be ideal. Remsense诉 22:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, Category:Religion in the Byzantine Empire is not an analogous category because Byzantine does not refer to a dynasty. A good analogous example is Category:People under the Almoravid dynasty. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The state is what is being referred to here, wholly in line with the language used in English-language literature about China. Remsense诉 04:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • A dynasty is something else than a state. If anything, the state is China. With the other example, the Almoravid dynasty, there is no commonly used state name at all, and that is also fine. State names may be derived from the dynasty name, e.g. Sassanid Empire and Sassanid dynasty but that is not the case here either. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't mean to be rude, but I feel this is being overly deliberate about universal boundaries between interwoven concepts in a way that, I stress, ignores actual usage. In part, these lexical differences can be ascribed to the distinct paradigms of dynasties in China compared to elsewhere. Byzantium was not really dynastic at its core at all, with the legitimacy of the state always clearly surpassing that of lineages. China was not the opposite per se, it's just that there was a totally different, more consubstantial relationship between the Chinese state and its ruling dynasty.
      Putting an even finer point on the "actual usage" argument: in a fulltext search of my library of China-related books, "under the Han dynasty" appears verbatim at some point in 14 books, while "in the Han dynasty" appears in 91! This ratio is 1:27 for the Shang, 11:21 for the Jin (both represented), 8:67 for the Tang, 6:54 for the Song, 11:42 for the Yuan, 16:52 for the Ming, and 7:51 for the Qing. This must reflect some conventional usage of "dynasty" in the name of a state, right? Remsense诉 05:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Marcocapelle, not to hound, but do you have any thoughts about this? To be clear, there's no lexical weirdness about the dataset above: "X dynasty" is being used as the name of the state in all the results I manually checked. Remsense诉 06:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Remsense诉 23:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't make much sense unless there is a consistent translation issue in these books. I can understand the misunderstanding if Chinese language uses the same word for "dynasty" and "empire" while in English we have two words for it with different meaning. I'm not saying this is the case but it is the only hypothesis I can come up with. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a "translation issue": most are native English books. Like I've said multiple times, it is the way the states are often referred to in English. I haven't been lying or misspeaking when I've repeatedly said that. I really didn't want to say something this blunt, but this is rather obvious and non-controversial to anyone who's read a little in English about Chinese history, or even China in general. What else would I have to do to demonstrate this fact to you? Remsense诉 02:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here, to make it more concrete:
Brief usage examples
  • Peter Kornicki (2018), Languages, Scripts, and Chinese Texts in East Asia: Interpreters were certainly needed when China expanded westwards in the Han dynasty (206 BCE – 220 CE), and they were later conscripted to manage encounters between Chinese and Uyghur speakers.
  • Livia Kohn (2000), Daoism Handbook: He distinguishes two major phases, classical Daoism and later Daoism, with the dividing line in the Han dynasty,
  • Chad Hansen (1982), Language and Logic in Ancient China: But sortals did not become grammatically necessary until sometime in the Han Dynasty.
  • Florian Coulmas (1999), The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems: This number quadrupled in the Han dynasty and by the twelfth century had soared to about 23,000.
  • Martin Svensson Ekström (2024), The Origins of Chinese Literary Hermeneutics: Naturally, such a reading would still be thoroughly rhetorical since this “peasant-chorus” must be understood as a mere oratorical artifice, organizing the narration of this piece—“simple” peasants in the Zhou Dynasty could hardly have composed such an aristocratic poem.
  • Thierry Meynard & Daniel Canaris (2021), A Brief Response on the Controversies over Shangdi, Tianshen and Linghun During his tenure as superior, his crisis management skills were tested when for the first time in the Ming dynasty the Catholic Church was faced with official prohibition.
  • David E. Mungello (1999), The Great Encounter of China and the West, 1500–1800: Xu was a first grand secretary, perhaps the highest official position in the Ming dynasty.
  • Eliot Weinberger (1987), 19 Ways of Looking at Wang Wei: The relevant essay is 1½ pages long and is devoted to excoriating, in idiosyncratic language, all other translators and scholars of Wang Wei for failing to realize that the last word of the poem had an alternate meaning in the Tang dynasty: 'to rise'.
  • Victor J. Katz (2021), The Mathematics of Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, India, and Islam: The conservative nature of Chinese mathematics is also clear from the way in which classic texts were canonized in the Tang Dynasty, and became the core foundation for the teaching of mathematics,
  • Stephen Little (1988), Realm of the Immortals: The carving of miniature jade mountains reached its height in the Qing dynasty, during the reign of the Qianlong Emperor (r. 1736-1795).
  • David A. Palmer & Fabian Winiger, in Kenneth Dean & Peter van der Veer ed. (2018), The Secular in South, East, and Southeast Asia: China in the Qing dynasty (1644–1911) was a highly enchanted society.
Is this helpful at all? If not, I would start being concerned that there's no possible thing I could do to demonstrate that commonplace usage happens to lie outside your personal intuitions in this case. Remsense诉 03:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • English-language historians of China may have adopted the Chinese way of equating dynasties and empires, but that is not how we normally use English language. This is a global encyclopedia, not a Chinese one. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The proposed versions do not feel right grammatically. What I would expect to read under that sort of construction would be something like, eg., "Religion in Shang dynasty‎ China". CMD (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do the excerpts directly quoted above make you feel similarly? To address your notion head-on: those would not be the COMMONNAMES for these states. The COMMONNAMES for these states are, instead, Shang dynasty, Zhou dynasty, et al. I cannot make this clear enough. Remsense诉 04:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As an ancillary but hopefully illustrative point: I prefer in to during here because there were often multiple dynastic states at a given time throughout Chinese history, so it would be potentially somewhat ambiguous if one were to speak of matters during the Song and during the Jin in a context where they were both around but did not begin or end around the same time. I have to reiterate, this is pretty much equivalent to one writing in the Byzantine Empire. Remsense诉 04:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The excerpts above seem to mostly use "in" in a temporal sense, whereas reading the category "in" reads as being used geographically. It is not grammatically equivalent to write about a dynasty as compared to an Empire. CMD (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The COMMONNAMES for the states are exactly as above: that is why the articles for the states are named as such, after much historical deliberation onsite. However, your nuance is well-taken, but I'm not really sure how to cleanly demonstrate usage that can't be characterized as partially temporal, given that these are states that overlap in geographical area and are (mostly) consecutive temporally. Here's one, though:
    • Thomas Mullaney, The Chinese Computer (2024): Chinese telegraphy dates back to 1871, when a newly laid telegraphic cable between Shanghai and Hong Kong linked the Qing dynasty (1644–1911) to a rapidly expanding international network dominated by the British Empire.
    Remsense诉 05:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The common name for the state in all of these cases is "China". Dynasty names are useful tools both as disambiguation and as a simple way to vary the text with a bit of metonymy, but that does not mean the grammar transfers exactly. The example you gave reads fine to me, but it's not the same as what is proposed. Grammar considerations are why I assume all the proposed titles maintain "the", rather than what would be an unusual "Religion in Ming dynasty". Formulations like I noted above or a shorter "Ming China" would keep the same grammar though. CMD (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is more common to say that something happened "in the Ming dynasty" or "during the Ming dynasty" than "under the Ming dynasty", because the phrase "Ming dynasty" most often refers to a state and a time period rather than a set of rulers. I realize this usage may be unfamiliar for people who haven't spent much time reading about Chinese history, but it is what's most common in reliable English-language sources about the subject. It's also not true that The common name for the state in all of these cases is "China" – for instance, the Jin dynasty (1115–1234) constituted only part of China by any reasonable definition, as it coexisted with the Song dynasty among other states. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to add that the phrase "(specific religion) during the X dynasty" is also used in articles like Islam during the Song dynasty, Islam during the Ming dynasty, Islam during the Qing dynasty, and Shamanism during the Qing dynasty. On the other hand, the phrase "Religion in the X dynasty" is used in the article Religion in the Song dynasty. --Wengier (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As that article states, the Jin Dynasty "was an imperial dynasty of China". That "during" is the same as "in" seems more evidence that the usage of "in" in such cases is temporal? If the proposal was Category:Religion during the Ming dynasty‎ this would be a different discussion. CMD (talk) 06:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Consistent with the article Religion in the Song dynasty. --Wengier (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Thai television series debuts by decade

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This is an umbrella category for a whole slew of subcategories, which each have a slew of subcategories. However, each is sparsely populated. This is a logical area for a navigation template, something that there may be a bot already to populate. I am suggesting we discuss this template with a view to incorporating the whole hierarchy of content into a navigation template. If that discussion reaches that conclusion, then processes should be put in hand to populate the template and depopulate the sub and sub-sub categories, which may then be deleted as empty. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What? Why would we create a template for unrelated entries that users will likely not ever use? This category system is exactly how this should be handled and how it is handled for other countries - see Category:Television series debuts by country and decade. This is a very strange deletion nomination. Gonnym (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baltic Germans

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Three related categories:

I am not sure which way to merge, but current situation makes a mess Estopedist1 (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what I think should happen is it should be merged into "Category:Baltic-German people", than the page should be split into a new catigory called "Category:Lists of Baltic-German German people". the "Category:Baltic-German culture" should be made a subcategory of Baltic-German people. Zyxrq (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bengali cinema

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The category should be changed since the main article's name was changed from Cinema of West Bengal to Bengali cinema, India. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jazzland Records (1960) albums

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Not sure why two categories were created, but now releases in two categories belong to the same label. The only other label with a similar name also already has its own category: Category:Jazzland Recordings albums. Solidest (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jazzland seems to be a sublabel of it. Riverside Records discography says it's subsidiary, Discogs says it's companion label. Solidest (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Acquired citizenship

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per previous discussions on "Naturalized citizens". Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've tagged Category:Change of nationality.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:18th century in Mozambique

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: downmerge, redundant category layer, there isn't any content here that doesn't fall under Portuguese Mozambique. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with it, but can we leave this as a redirect to resolve the template from breaking? Mason (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting pending Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 3#16th to 19th century in (Portuguese) Mozambique.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still pending
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:3rd century in Africa (Roman province)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory each. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to ?? century in Roman Africa I populated these categories somewhat. However, in Diocletian's administrative reforms (sometime between 284–305 CE), Africa (Roman province) was split into Africa Zeugitana, Africa Byzacena, and Africa Tripolitania. In 314 CE, these provinces were grouped together along with almost all Roman provinces on the African continent in the Diocese of Africa. Thus there essentially was no Roman province named just "Africa" in the 3rd-5th centuries. With my rename proposal, I suggest the new category scope includes all Roman and Byzantine-controlled areas on the African continent. The people categories need to be renamed as well. Daask (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 23:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per Daask; do not delete: Smallcat is best employed when there is no potential for expansion, but these categories have considerable potential for expansion, though they would be better renamed. While merging them is a possibility, that would risk reducing their utility as navigational aids. This may be an area of study that has been neglected on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of potential topics under these headings. As far as I know, Roman Africa flourished at least until the time of the Vandal invasion, which would be worthy of multiple topics itself; I believe Belisarius attempted to reclaim Africa from the Vandals, which would seem to merit a topic; and of course it was still inhabited at the time the Muslims swept across it on the way to Spain, and that is a topic or two as well. There may be some articles on Roman governors, petty kings, bishops and religious writers from the region. It makes little sense to delete these categories now only to recreate them under substantially identical names once more articles have been written or added, justifying splitting a bigger category again. P Aculeius (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: SMALLCAT is deprecated and should not be referencecs as an argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National military histories by war

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I find this name very confusing. I think, based on the contents, it would be better off as Military history by war and country, and the child categories could be renamed Vietnam War military history by country etc Mason (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject assessment categories needing attention

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The purpose of this category is unclear. Some categories were added manually, while others are tagged by Template:Category class — based on the template's source code, this happens if and only if the name is incorrect. 
{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}{{subst:!}}{{PAGENAME:{{{class}}}{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{class{{subst:!}}}}}}}{{subst:!}}unassessed{{subst:!}}{{subst:!}}-Class}} {{{topic}}} articles}}{{subst:!}}
   {{subst:!}}[[Category:WikiProject assessment categories needing attention]]
  }}
–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked WP:AWBREQ to auto-tag all of the categories here that are manually added, almost all of which have only the category listing in their source code. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait, Category:Template Category class with class parameter not matching title exists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can {{Category class}} handle pages like Category:Disambig-Class Bihar articles of Low-importance‎? It has both class and importance. Gonnym (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't think there is an existing template that covers cateegory navigation for the quality–importance intersection. I'm also seeking to standardize category names fo this type with a recent WP:CFDS for the intersectional ones of WikiProject Amphibians and reptiles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are you going to tag all 333 categories in Category:WikiProject assessment categories needing attention? Liz Read! Talk! 01:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: This nomination is only about the parent, not its subcategories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "manually tagged" ones were added because while this has now faded somewhat, last year in particular there was an absolute epidemic of people making hasty, half-baked "standardization" edits to wikiproject templates that had the side-effect of spewing out new redlinked wikiproject class and importance rating categories (sometimes even for wikiprojects that don't even do importance-rating at all) at an absolutely alarming rate — meaning that as a person who works to clean up categorization errors at Special:WantedCategories, for several weeks I was getting slapped in the face with dozens of those at a time on every new generation of that report.
    They can't just stay red, which means they have to be either created or removed before the next generation of the report 72 hours later — but removing a template-generated category is impossible without either editing the template in ways that surpass my understanding of template-coding infrastructure, and thus likely breaking stuff, or totally reverting the changes that caused the redlinked category to exist in the first place, and thus being disruptive, so my only option was to create all of those categories myself. But creating a class or importance rating category is a more complex process than creating a mainspace category, especially in the cases where I would have had to create the entire importance-rating infrastructure from scratch (which I don't even know how to do), so it would have taken me weeks to do all the work myself — so especially given the sheer amount of crap I was having to deal with, my only realistic option was "do the absolute bare minimum necessary to make the category blue instead of red, and leave it in a place where the experts in wikiproject-rating categorization can fix it": namely, create a virtually blank category that doesn't contain all of the category-making code that a wikiproject assessment category should really contain, and then leave it in a "wikiproject categories that need to be fixed by people who actually know what they're doing" queue.
    There's absolutely nothing on this category that says it's only for naming errors, and there are other kinds of attention that a wikiproject assessment category can need besides naming problems alone — so it makes sense to create the proposed category as a subcategory of this if desired, but it doesn't make sense to move the existing category to this since there can be other legitimate reasons for its use besides naming problems alone. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not automate the creation and labeling of these categories? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would have to be done by somebody who knows how to do that, wouldn't it? Said somebody would not be me, so while those should be automated I'm not the one who can do that. Bearcat (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with splitting the incorrect names subcategory with the template-categorized system through Template:Category class and Template:Category importance, and leaving this category here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hijacked journals

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. Proposal: listify, where it could be better sourced. Currently this content is not discussed in the eponym article, Hijacked journal, nor in most member artciles, e.g., Sylwan. fgnievinski (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of these are reasons for deletion. If it's not discussed in each article, it should be. That individuals are not discussed in the main eponimous article is irrelevant, because they shouldn't be. We mention the first known case, Archive des Sciences as an example, but there's no reason to mention the others. WP:NONDEF also does not apply because journals do not control if they are hijacked or not, but it's very much an important thing to know about a journal. And if you want to have a list, have a list, but that does not make the category irrelevant or useless. Also an important defense for WP:CITEWATCH. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lots of things can be a "important thing to know" (for whom?) but that does not put WP:NONDEF aside. No objection to listification if someone volunteers for that. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    for whom? For the reader. If you stumble upon a citation to e.g. Sylwan, it's important to know that Sylwan was hijacked, and that you may not be looking at the real Sylwan but the fake one. Also, per WP:NONDEF
  • a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject.
  • We have multiple reliable sources describing these journals as hijacked
  • if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead section of an article (determined without regard to whether it is mentioned in the lead), it is probably not defining;
  • If it's not mentioned in the lead, it should be.
  • if the characteristic falls within any of the forms of overcategorization mentioned on this page, it is probably not defining.
  • It doesn't fall into any of them.
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which sources define them as "a hijacked journal"? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Beall's list, Retraction Watch, ScholarlyOA (before it was itself hijacked), Walailak Journal, Nature, etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are sources about the topic of hijacking. The question is about sources about the subjects in the category. Please read WP:NONDEF carefully. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Every one of those sources identify specific journals being hijacked, and how they were hijacked. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're missing the gist of NONDEF, so I'll quote:
      A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place.
      It goes on to say:
      • if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead section of an article (determined without regard to whether it is mentioned in the lead), it is probably not defining;
      No Wikipedia article about a hijacked journal start (or should start) saying "Journal X is a hijacked journal". They just happen to be a victim of a scam. Granted, it's nice to know, but it needs to be sourced; a list would be the best place to cite sources, which is not technically possible in a mere category membership. fgnievinski (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No Wikipedia article about a hijacked journal start (or should start) saying "Journal X is a hijacked journal". No, but the lead could (and I would argue, should) end with "The journal was hijacked by <organization>, with a fake website at <fakeurldomain>, and the legitimate site hosted at <realurldomain>".[source]" This is absolutely critical information because otherwise someone looking for e.g. Wulfenia could well end up checking the scam version rather than the legit version. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Fourth Aliyah

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: disperse, period of 1924-1929 is arbitrary and we have diffused these migrants already by country of origin. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Marco. That’s not going to happen. This is a category specific to the period of the Fourth Aliyah, which was 5 years. We do not want to merge it into a 20 year period of immigration. Dag21902190 (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the siblings too, they are based on equally arbitrary periods. If not merged, then at least rename "members" to "migrants" or something like that. It does not concern membership of an organization. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge/disperse per Marco's second proposal. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are not arbitrary periods, you are flexing your ignorance of Israeli history.
    Furthermore, believe it or not, definition of a “member” is “one of the individuals of a group”. The group of individuals who migrated to the Land of Israel during each Aliyah was a “member” of that respective Aliyah. They have been referred to as members of their respective Aliyot since the founding of the state.
    if you want to change the word “member” for “migrant”, you will have to figure out how to change that on each person’s page. But your statement that “member” only refers to the “member of an organization”, is not true. It is your perspective of the word, but not reality.
    I will note that the time you have dedicated to coming after these unique categories, and attempting to disperse them into the ether, piques my interest. You have spent hours attacking Israeli categories and pages, wasting time that could have been used being productive.
    We will not be doing anything to the categories, as that would be denying the reality of each unique Aliyah.
    I’m starting to have serious questions about the moderators of this platform. Everything Israel-related gets attacked non-stop (in an organized fashion), by people like you, who don’t even know what the Aliyot were! Making claims that each Aliyah is an arbitrary time-period is a blatant lie, and your privileges should be investigated. This is bizarre. Dag21902190 (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, I find it absolutely fascinating that you nominated the first five Aliyot for dispersal, but left out the Aliyah Bet category. Is it because Aliyah Bet was illegal immigration, and doesn’t make the Jews look good? So you wanted to disperse one through five, and keep just the illegal immigration?
    This entire nomination should be ignored, and the bias you’ve shown by nominating it should come back and bite you. Dag21902190 (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1st. Category:Aliyah Bet does not contain immigrants, it is a topic category. So that is something completely different. 2nd. Every of these Aliyahs is not a single group, they concern a process of several years with many separate groups and individuals. Group membership is therefore completely inapplicable here. 3rd. Please stop with personal attacks. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I’m not sure what you don’t understand, and the reason you keep doubling down on a subject you know nothing about is beyond me. Each Aliyah had its own unique movement. The facilitators of those Aliyot knew that they were facilitating the first, second, third, fourth, fifth Aliyah, and then Aliyah Bet. These categories organize the early Zionist immigrants to the land of Israel by the specific Aliyah movements that facilitated their immigration. To deny the benefits of these categories, and continue to gaslight me, is just a disingenuous tactic. I frankly consider the mass nominations of my categories for” deletion” and “merging” as vandalism, and an overreach of your privileges. You are not a victim here, you are the attacker. Dag21902190 (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only now I notice that you have created Category:Members of Aliyah Bet too. I will nominate this category as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Liz: not by nominator, but by creator of these categories. They have manually moved the articles from "Members" to "Immigrants". That is a waste of effort because the move could have done by a bot if there was consensus for it. I have updated the proposal accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You should be investigated by Wikipedia for overreach of your editing privileges. You are stalking my page, attempting to merge all of my work into broader categories that don’t differentiate between Aliyot, (which is the entire point of these categories). This is the 12th category of mine that you have vandalized with some sort of banner, and for no good reason other than it relates to Israel. You didn’t like the word “member”, so I changed it to ”immigrant”. Now you’re making a blatantly false claim that each Aliyah is an arbitrary time period. It doesn’t matter to you if you revise history, as long as you prevent a compartmentalized gold-mine of information, like these categories, from existing. You are working hard to prevent any sort of organization that makes it easy to research the early history of Israel. Dag21902190 (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, Marcocapelle, I saw the comment they inserted in your nomination and thought they were the nominator. What is going to happen with all of these "Member" categories that are now empty? Will they be turned into redirects if this proposal goes through? Liz Read! Talk! 20:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see a convincing argument to disperse. Marco points out 5 year periods are arbitrary, but so are centuries. If, as Dag states, there exists a mode of reference that divides the immigrants into 5 periods, and someone may reasonably be taking advantage of that division to differentiate between 2 immigrants from different periods, I don't see any reason to disperse. If Dag just invented this division himself I would agree, but my impression is that this isn't the case. JoeJShmo💌 23:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC) not extended confirmed HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Weak keep I'm not confident they can be dismissed as arbitrary periods - insofar that distinct push and pull factors during the different periods makes each wave have its own characteristics - but even if arbitrary periods of early immigration, they are well recognised as distinct periods (at least within Jewish scholarship). Culturally, also, the Israeli concept of "returning home" as part of an Aliyah is distinct from immigration. For these reasons, the people who were part of such migration would most likely identify it with the X Aliyah name, not as anything else. So as long as there is a good source saying that an individual moving to (insert era) Palestine did so as part of an Aliyah, I believe it is a valid identifying category. My one is concern, though, that people who may have migrated and aren’t identified as part of an Aliyah may be added to these categories based on timespan alone; manual sorting could be required which (I know from experience) is exhaustive and nigh-impossible. For simplicity and not being technically untrue, I wouldn’t staunchly object to the merge proposals as laid out. Kingsif (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kaguya-hime

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: All articles in the category are adaptations. Also the category title should use the current title of the main article. Mika1h (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by era in Rivers State

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This is a redundant category layer Mason (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User talk archives

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Unknowing recreation, in 2016, of a category created in 2006 which was deleted at CfD in 2008. Same rationale applies now as in the nomination back then - it's not useful for navigation or collaboration to group disparate user talk archives.  — Scott • talk 12:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comedy video games

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: As per Comedy in video games there is no proof that a "comedy video game" genre actually exists, and while there are categories for "parody" or "satire", that is more self-evident. Comedy comes in numerous forms, making the separation between comedic and non-comedic unclear (I could call Garry's Mod a "comedy" game even if it is all unintentional). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What about licensed video game adaptations of comedy movies and shows? Category:Parody video games and Category:Satirical video games have significant overlap with this category, I'd argue many of the games listed here could be categorized as comedy games, what makes these subcategories more legit than the parent category? AHI-3000 (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Parody and satire might actually merit a merge into each other, but they are indicative of a clear attempt to mock the original source material which is quickly evident. McPixel is obviously a parody of MacGuyver. Meanwhile, comedic video games are rarely classified as such. I don't see anyone calling Drakengard 3 a comedy game despite in my experience being heavily humorous, people classify it as an action game. Comedy and parody/satire are not the same. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google search for "comedy video games".
Not sure how many of these websites are considered to be reliable sources according to Wikipedia policies, but for what it's worth there does seem to be a belief that Comedy exists as a narrative genre for video games, akin to Horror, Fantasy or Science Fiction.
Also, please take a look at the "Comedy video games" category. Admittedly, most of the subcategories are for licensed adaptations of various film and TV franchises which everyone agrees are primarily comedic by nature. Games based on comedy movies and shows tend to also be comedic and heavily focused on humor.
And another thing to consider is that there are non-adaptational video game franchises that are known for having a mostly comedic tone. Some notable examples are Borderlands, Destroy All Humans!, Monkey Island, Ratchet & Clank, and Saints Row. And I'm quite certain that there are countless reliable sources which describe these games' focus on humor and satire.
AHI-3000 (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Russian Orthodox Church, Baku diocese

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one article and one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Churches under the Baku diocese

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename to align with Category:Russian Orthodox churches by country. Note that the territory of the Diocese of Baku and Azerbaijan coincides with the country of Azerbaijan. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video game franchises by narrative genre

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: QuantumFoam66 (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is clearly a subcategory of Category:Video games by narrative genre, why would you suggest an unrelated name? AHI-3000 (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fajemirokun family

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. There are only two people in this family, which could be interlinked if it was clear how they were related. Mason (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NBC LX Home affiliates

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: No longer available OTA but still streaming; these stations have/will start airing a new diginet, NBC American Crimes (no article yet) Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nintendo controversies

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category is terrible, for several reasons:

- Contains a bunch of loosely unrelated content, only defined by "being related to Nintendo", even some that Nintendo, the video game company, was not even in involved in, such as the Burger King one, as well as the other Pokémon ones, especially the ones about the anime.

- The category already overlaps with other Controversies categories.

- We could start a new category to divide the Pokémon controversies, but we cannot, we currently do not have any categories for controversies over a specific media franchise, and in turn never should.

If we delete this category, we will need undo some of Blakegripling_ph's edits for which he changed.

Also, if you insist on retaining this category by making a similar category like "Works taken down by Nintendo", we don't, because information on this topic should better be located in the article "Intellectual property protection by Nintendo". QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


July 16

[edit]

Category:Royal National Institute for the Blind alumni

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This is a charity which, as far as I can tell, supports blind people but isn't a school. In any case, there is only one article in here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Irish blind musicians

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only nationality category in Category:Blind musicians. Seems like an unnecessary intersection between nationality, musicians, and disability. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Survivors of the attempted assassination of Donald Trump

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NOTDEFINING. I don't see how being a survivor of this particular shooting is a defining characteristic of these individuals, as they were all notable prior to the shooting taking place. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree per the nomination and would like to add that the category sounds to me like these people survived getting shot rather than having been present at the event, so if this is kept, I would modify the category to something clearer like "People present at the attempted assassination of Donald Trump". Upjav (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wander Over Yonder

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains two articles. No good merge targets. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of Brussels by period

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, this part of the history of Brussels tree overlaps entirely with Category:Centuries in Brussels, furthermore it is highly inaccurate. For example the Dutch period lasted only from 1815 to 1830 but the whole 19th century has been put under it. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Quota reform protest in Bangladesh

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Same category. Mehedi Abedin 06:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Villains in mythology and legend

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: As far as I know, "villain" is usually used in a literary context. We typically use "evil" to describe malevolent gods and there is already such a category called Category:Evil deities, making this redundant and pointless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This category is not restricted to gods or goddesses. This is supposed to be a counterpart to Category:Heroes in mythology and legend, and just as there are plenty of folklore heroes, there are folklore villains too. AHI-3000 (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Decades in the Colony of Virginia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant categoey lay Mason (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Current roller hockey seasons

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Empty and not enough possible articles to justify it as a subcat to "current sporting seasons". Pelmeen10 (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boxing matches at Madison Square Garden

[edit]

.:* Propose merging Category:Boxing matches at Wembley Arena to Category:Boxing matches in London

Nominator's rationale: Per the recent discussion and WP:OCVENUE. User:Namiba 16:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose Removing these Categories will severely overpopulate the populated place pages User:Sam11333 16:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only one to which that might apply is the Las Vegas Valley and even that won't be massive.--User:Namiba 16:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any doubt on that one!
I can't see the logic in removing the venue categories, given that WP:OCVENUE states that "categories that indicate how a specific facility is regularly used in a specific and notable way" can be appropriate. I would argue that a boxing match falls under that description. Sam11333 (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Including these arenas in the boxing venues category is fine. But OCVENUE and the recent consensus I've cited is very clear "avoid categorizing events by their hosting locations".--User:Namiba
Tagging editors who commented on the most recent discussion User:Marcocapelle, User:Omnis Scientia, User:Epicgenius, User:Flibirigit.--User:Namiba 19:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Constitutionalism

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. The category creator really needs to slow down with the creation of narrow/non-defining categories. Mason (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with deletion. (I struggled to pick a merge target. But I try to always at least propose one)Mason (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Counts of Geneva

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, the category consists of two very different sets of medieval ruling counts of Geneva, who are already in Category:House of Geneva and for early modern members of the House of Savoy for whom this was merely an empty title. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't believe the above summary to be quite right. Several members of the house of Savoy enjoyed practical control over the county and they are not going to be recorded in 'house of Geneva'. There is also the house of Thoire that controlled the county briefly in the late medieval period who presently lack articles but would be members of the category if they didn't. Moreover even after the city of Geneva slipped from their grasp (they maintained control of other parts of the county such as Annecy) the county remained prominent among their titulary (several of the sons of the dukes of Nemours were called the prince de Genevois until the death of their fathers) and is featured in the leading sentences of many of the articles. sovietblobfish (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree some form of re-allocation needs to happen from Jacques on down. Especially given the county was raised to a duchy by the duke of Savoy in 1564. Perhaps they should be migrated to a category called something like 'Prince de Genevois' or 'Prince of the Genevois'. sovietblobfish (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course members of the house of Savoy enjoyed practical control over the county because it was part of the Savoyard state and the rulers of the latter were the ones enjoying practical control. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      At times yes, however the county (-1564 duchy) was under the authority of the cadet branch Savoie-Nemours for the majority of the 16th century and parts of the 17th century, and they were primarily French princes.
      Irrespective of whether they or the dukes of Savoy enjoyed practical control, this surely challenges the notion that it was an 'empty title' and it is therefore meaningful to keep it. sovietblobfish (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bedouin businesspeople

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Not necessary to subcategorize the target category this way. Also contains only 2 articles. Gjs238 (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete, the articles are already in Category:Egyptian businesspeople and Category:Syrian businesspeople, which should suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per Marco. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't there some benefit to categorising by ethnicity and nationality? Anecdotally, every Bedouin I've ever met would say that they're a Bedouin first and their nationality second. – Joe (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge I will nominate Category:Arab businesspeople shortly because it conflates ethnicity and nationality, like so many similar categories that have been brought to CfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it conflate them or just set up a parallel scheme for ethnicity, i.e. Category:Businesspeople by ethnicity? Do you also object to Category:African-American businesspeople and Category:Jewish businesspeople? – Joe (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Jewish businesspeople is a recreation of a previously deleted category, so it is at least controversial. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      But it exists now. And Nyttend recently declined a CSD nom with this enlightening edit summary: We're no longer in the same situation as before — the recent "keep" for Jews by occupation (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 26) means that there's recent support for categories of this type, and speedy-deleting just this one would be absurd. I don't have a dog in this fight, but wouldn't it make sense to establish a consensus for or against categories by ethnicity, rather than seeking to delete individual ones here and there? – Joe (talk) 11:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain I can list quite a few reasons for this: Bedouins have a distinct cultural, historical, and social identity within the Arab world. Merging their category into a general "Arab businesspeople" category could be seen as diluting the unique aspects of their cultural heritage. A specific category helps represent their unique challenges and contributions which might not be adequately covered. The Bedouin community has a history of nomadic trade and business practices that differ significantly from other Arab groups. A specific category preserves this historical context. Bedouins have distinct social structures and community dynamics that influence their business practices. Specific business strategies, success stories and challenges faced by Bedouin businesspeople can be studied with the help of a dedicated category. For cultural studies research, having a specific category can help in drawing more nuanced conclusions about the Bedouin way of life and their integration into modern economies. Furthermore, Wikipedia claims to be an inclusive platform representing diverse perspectives and communities. This category aligns with the principle of giving minority groups adequate representation. Merging the category marginalizes the Bedouin community within the larger Arab context.--Simxaraba (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of this addresses the small size of the category, and this is just WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several more businessmen that are notable enough to be written about. Just because the category is small at the moment doesn't mean there aren't more. Simxaraba (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge? Delete? Keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge

Gjs238 (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brainwashing theory proponents

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Whatever the difference is supposed to be between these two categories is beyond me. As far as I can tell, both categories are about people notable for writing works promoting the legitimacy of the sociological concept of brainwashing/mind control (which are more or less the same thing). This just seems like a slightly less neutral version of the other category made by a banned sock. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games with expansion packs

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Last year, on May 7, 2023. A similar category "Video games with downloadable content" was deleted, and expansion packs are pretty much the same as downloadable content. In turn, this category is probably non-defining. Expansion packs are as common as DLC, and are essentially the same. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd agree with the nominator - having an expansion pack does not always modify the base game, so it's hard to call it a defining feature. Categories should be defining aspects of the subject, not something tangential. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose because there are several other potentially non defining categories like "Video games with alternate versions" that I would have put under discussion in the same nomination or whatever. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am going to note that nom is QuantumFoam66.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palestinian bedouins

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Effectively redundant. Will require manual addition of parent categories to the target, for it is a downmerge. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Joe's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century feminists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There is no need to have an intersection between political orientation and century. Mason (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


July 15

[edit]

Category:Video game fandom

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Totally withdrawn by nominator, no opposition. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is redundant, we already have "Video game culture" with already covers the video game subculture, comprising all the fans. This category is actually pointless, so it can merged with that category or just deleted. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 21:56, 15 July 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:1370 in Brussels

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated single-article categories, not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional puppets

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Created by a blocked disruptive user. When the category is purged of all irrelevant pages that are not about individual characters or objects, there are not enough articles to support such a specific category. Per WP:OVERLAPCAT it should be merged to the parent. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pet insurance

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Four out of five entries are insurance companies/providers, and the fifth is the main topic. I don't see anything else that would be worth including here, so I figure refiguring the scope of the cat, moving it to Category:Insurance companies, upmerging said main topic to Category:Types of insurance, and including it via {{catmain}} would be sensible. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Bangles video albums

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Sole entry is a non-notable redirect. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This redirect goes to an article in Category:The Bangles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kingdom Hearts original characters

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Over 100 characters from various animated Disney movies, were removed from "Kingdom Hearts characters" about 1 or 2 years ago, also that category contains only 1 article. Also, we have to add an explanation to that category after the merge, since then it would only be for original characters. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:35, 15 July 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"