Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions

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

Speedy renaming and merging[edit]

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

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

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

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

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 00:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 154 open requests (refresh).

Current requests[edit]

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

Opposed requests[edit]

On hold pending other discussion[edit]

Moved to full discussion[edit]

Moved to full Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all of them. Nationality =/= Country. First, a prince of Bohemia, of Austria, or of Bavaria were all considered to be German princes (during the HRE), while it would be difficult to argue that the prince of Bohemia, or of Austria are princes in Germany. Second, one could have been a princess in Denmark, or of the Netherlands, while being of French or of German nationality. I'm pretty much sure that searching a little bit, many of those cases would arise.SFBB (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See for instance Category:Princesses of Orange that you would categorize as Dutch princess...it simply does not work. SFBB (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current discussions[edit]

Shortcut

July 15[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

July 14[edit]

Category:Mid 19th Century Revival architecture in the United States[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category seems underpopulated and doesn't seem to be very defining by itself. If not merged, it should be renamed. Mason (talk) 23:45, 14 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]

Category:Poets of the Confederacy[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Follow up to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_3#Category:Pro-Confederate_clergy, There's no need to have an intersection between nationality, period, occupation, and opinion. Mason (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient infrastructure[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, only one article in each of these categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 14 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]
  • They do not seem very disparate, most of them lived not too far from Mexico City, the capital of New Spain. And even if they would live far away from the capital, is that a problem? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Expatriates from the Spanish Empire[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category is underpopulated and unhelpful. The only person in here is cuban, and there is no mention of the spanish empire on the page Mason (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Involving countries[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with Category:Wars involving former countries and similarly-named categories of non-state actors (e.g. Category:Battles involving peoples, Category:Wars involving peoples; supranational organisations like Category:Peacekeeping missions and operations involving the United Nations; rebel groups like Category:Military operations involving the al-Nusra Front; alliances like Category:Wars involving NATO and Category:Military operations involving the Warsaw Pact, etc.), and to avoid confusion with "countries formerly involved in war X". Follow-up to preliminary discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 22#Involving former countries or by former country involved, where it was found best to let go of the "by country involved" formula as the de facto standard. NLeeuw (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: courtesy ping for follow-up discussion. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about reopening and notifications
  • Comment As nominator I would have appreciated it if I had been notified that this CfR had been reopened, and why, and that it would have been relisted. I only discovered this now: Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working#NAC requests 8–14 June 2024. I personally don't like this naming convention - Category:Wars involving countries seems ridiculous to me (doesn't every war involve a country). But I guess I'm far too late to make this point, as usual. This indeed seems far too late to make this point when consensus had already been achieved. The rationale I provided explains that lots of wars do not involve countries as the only belligerents, and sometimes none at all. These belligerents are known as non-state actors: rebel groups, peoples, alliances, etc. That one personally finds this ridiculous when the rationale has explicitly explained how this is possible is pretty much an WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT argument (they even downright say I personally don't like this), and reopening a closed CfR for this reason alone, not notifying the nom and other participants and not relisting it, and two of the admins who were involved in the decision to reopen it participating in the CfR and then !voting against it (thus overturning the unanimous support that the proposal had enjoyed so far), is quite an odd turn of events. I wouldn't mind reopening a discussion for good reasons, but the !voting of admins involved in the decision to reopen it is rather suggestive of something happening out of process (I don't know the exact protocols for this, but I'll try to find it). I hope the situation can be clarified soon. NLeeuw (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not reopen this discussion, nor even ask the closer to reopen it. I just refused to use my own admin tools to implement a result I found ridiculous, expecting some other admin to just push the button. Fayenatic london asked the original closer to reopen, and they agreed. There's nothing wrong with that process. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps not, but I do object to the two of you !voting in this discussion after convincing @HouseBlaster to reopen it.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, admins should either:
    1. participate in a CfD like a regular editor, not making use of their admin privileges, especially if they have already cast a !vote, because once they do, they should maintain their role as a regular editor for the rest of the discussion; or
    2. be neutral in the discussion, including the !voting, and merely ensure that the process is being followed according to established procedure, making use of their admin privileges if necessary. This includes relisting, closing, and implementing the result if this requires special admin actions (deletion, renaming, merging, splitting). It may also include more regular actions that regular editors could also perform, such as asking the nominator or other participants for clarification of what they mean, or tagging/pinging relevant users for relevant notifications, or other comments for the understanding of participants (e.g. pointing to precedents, previous or simultaneous discussions, or pointing out that a certain user is a sock that had been blocked, and striking their !vote as invalid per WP:SOCKSTRIKE). As far as I am aware, requesting to reopen a discussion at NAC requests at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working is also an admin action that no regular editor can perform. (Edit: Turns out this is not the case; any editor can request reopening a category discussion over there. Thanks to FL for clarifying. NLeeuw (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)). As soon as an admin takes an admin action, they should maintain that neutral role of ensuring that the discussion proceeds as it should, until it is closed and implemented.[reply]
    So if an admin requests a reopening, that means their role on the CfD is that of an admin, and they should maintain that role for the rest of the CfD. If an admin !votes, they should maintain the role of a regular editor for the rest of the CfD. If an admin does both things, they are mixing up the two roles they can take. (Edit: Turns out this is not the case; any editor can request reopening a category discussion over there, so this is not an "admin action", and roles are not mixed up in such a case. Thanks to FL for clarifying. NLeeuw (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)).[reply]
    Again, correct me if I'm wrong (Edit: I partially was . NLeeuw (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)), but this is how I have understood how admins are supposed to operate at CfD. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find any policy, guideline, instruction or help page which formally explains how this should work (please link me to it if it does exist!), so my understanding is mostly based on my experiences here at CFD since February 2023. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: There may be some exceptions to what I have described above. For example, I've seen it happen that a CfD was relisted twice by a admin, but there was still very little participation (nobody else had !voted on the proposal yet). Then that admin cast a !vote, and another admin closed the discussion in which the !vote of the first admin proved to be decisive. Is that an issue? I don't think so. Relisting the discussion as an admin and then stepping down from that role and partipating as a regular editor by !voting does not seem to be a problem, as the relisting would not necessarily influence the direction of the discussion. If this change of role helps resolve an otherwise inactive, dormant discussion, that helps Wikipedia move forward.
    The other way around is more dubious. If an admin casts a !vote first, and then later relists the discussion, that might be an implicit "advertising" of their own !vote to other participants.
    Again, this is just what I've seen, and what makes sense to me. I don't know if this is officially approved and agreed procedure written down somewhere, or just convention based on custom / precedent, but never formally written down anywhere. Please correct me if I'm wrong; we could all benefit from clarification. NLeeuw (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NLeeuw I apologise for not notifying you of the reopening. I will also ping the other participants Marcocapelle and LaundryPizza03 as a courtesy. Apart from that I don't think there has been any poor practice here. Any user can request a closer to reopen a discussion, e.g. to present fresh arguments. As it happens, Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working can be edited by anybody; I accept that only admins and non-admin closers are likely to visit it, but it doesn't really matter where the request for reopening takes place; it would most often be done on the closer's user talk page, but could be e.g. on a parent category talk page or on a main article's talk page. As for the admin role, Pppery and I cannot close this now that I have participated with a !vote, but I see no conflict re the reopening. – Fayenatic London 16:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fwiw, I think we have situation 1 here, admins who "participate in a CfD like a regular editor, not making use of their admin privileges". Admin privileges are e.g. the possibility to delete pages and to block accounts, those are not applicable here. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you are right, also based on Fayenatic's explanation that the request to reopen may be submitted by any editor. So that did not happen out of process; the process just isn't clear (at least not to me), because it appears not to be written down anywhere for all to see (and find). I've posed some questions below to try and clarify some things to address similar issues in the future. NLeeuw (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fayenatic london Thanks for that explanation and apology, I accept it.
    I'd like to say and ask a few more things that are not intended to influence the result of this discussion, but only to help clarify CfD (including CfR, CfM, CfS etc.) procedures in general. Because I did not know that anyone could request reopening a discussion at that subsection of Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working. Honestly, I browsed through dozens of policy, guideline, convention, instruction, procedure and talk pages, but almost all content about reopening discussions is about deleted articles. E.g. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE should generally apply to category discussions, but its contents don't really explicitly cover scenarios involving categories, let alone CfRs.
    Can reopenings be requested for just any reason? to present fresh arguments seems odd; if consensus has been established and the discussion has been closed, why should any individual person be able to challenge the result on the basis of "fresh arguments"? WP:CLOSECHALLENGE generally suggests that closures can only be overturned for procedural reasons, not in order to continue the discussion itself with on-topic arguments. At least, I see no such scenarios under Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures, which seems to apply to all category discussions (but correct me if I'm wrong).
    The only possible way I see is (A).3 if an early closure is followed by multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion, or a single editor has brought forth a compelling new perspective to the already closed discussion. This is quite a vague stipulation to unpack, but here I go:
    • Was there an "early closure"? WP:CFDAI states Normally, only close discussions if they have been open to participation for more than a week. It was open for 12.5 days (without relisting) before HouseBlaster closed it. So no, this wasn't an "early closure", it was relatively late. Pppery acknowledges this, implying it may be "too late" to reopen: But I guess I'm far too late to make this point, as usual. (Not sure if relisting is required after 7 days without apparent consensus? But that's a minor side-issue).
    • Were there "multiple editors asking that it be reopened for further discussion"? I guess Pppery and FL together are "multiple" editors, so yes, though only barely. Note that @Ymblanter said: It seems to be consensus though, I will wait a bit and process. So only one editor would not have been enough.
    • To make a technical grammatical argument, perhaps the two clauses of the sentence are independent of each other, and the "early closure" part does not apply to the second clause? In that case, the second clause can be read as if [...] a single editor has brought forth a compelling new perspective to the already closed discussion[, c]losures will often be changed by the closing editor without a closure review[.] In that case it doesn't matter how far too late Pppery was, just what a compelling new perspective he has brought forth. But who is to judge what is "compelling"? And what kind of "perspective"? I note that this appears to have nothing to do with procedural objections such as outlined elsewhere under "Challenge other closures", or under "Challenging a deletion", or under "Challenging a move", all of which are procedural. Apparently it can be a fresh on-topic argument, even long after a regular closure. Might this not lead to arbitrary decisions to reopen discussions based on a single editor's request, thus overturning an already-established consensus? (Ymblanter). Unless I'm wrong, perhaps this stipulation should be clarified or modified to rule out anyone coming along with a "compelling new perspective" that is accepted by an admin for non-procedural reasons?
    NLeeuw (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: TL;DR version: Is it ever justified to reopen a category discussion for non-procedural reasons, when it appears that no other type of discussion, once closed, may be reopened for non-procedural reasons? NLeeuw (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PPS: I'm gathering that "changing a closure" can include three actions: (A) rewording the closure, (B) reopening the discussion without review, or (C) reopening the discussion following a closure review. Does it also include the possibility or requirement to relist the discussion if reopened? Compare Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging a move 2. ...the RM should be reopened and relisted. In this case, neither relisting nor tagging/pinging (initially) took place; it's not required, but perhaps we should make that a rule, just like relisting can be a requirement in an RM that is reopened under scenario (2)? That way, past participants, who may have seen that the discussion was closed (as I did), and were not aware it had been reopened afterwards (as I only found out 2 days later when I happened to check it), can be informed passively (by relisting) or actively (by tagging/pinging) of its reopening, as a matter of courtesy. (I appreciate the fact that Fayenatic london still pinged the other two participants today). NLeeuw (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion on the actual nomination at hand (as well as the alt)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the discussion about procedures should be moved and held somewhere else than CfD, that's fine with me. What would be the best venue? NLeeuw (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion? NLeeuw (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic, can I ask you for some further explanation/rationale? You said: I find nothing wrong with the phrase "by former country involved". Ok, but that's not an argument in itself. Is there anything wrong with the proposal? If there is, what? If not, then one might as well not !vote, or !vote weak support, or !vote neutral. Moreover, why is there a need to add "involved" to catnames which currently do not have that word? You propose we should, but do not explain why. Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NLeeuw I am persuaded by Pppery's argument agains the proposal. The proposed name is bad because it's meaningless in English, and omits "by" which indicates that it's a container category (with or without a template). I do not accept your rationale as I think it would be improbable to confusion with "countries formerly involved in war X". "Involved" should be added consistently per the precedents linked above, to indicate participants rather than locations. I support the rationale I've recently initiated a push for adding the word "involved" to the latter type of catnames to avoid confusion with "battles *in* Fooland" (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Battles by country and WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN) by, er, NLeeuw. – Fayenatic London 10:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since when does a containercat need the word by in the catname? Wikipedia:Container category doesn't say anything about that. If we take a look at a random sample of 500 categories which transclude Template:Container category, only 312 of them (62.4%) have the word by in the catname. Are you suggesting that the other 188 catnames (37.6%) are all bad because it's meaningless in English? Or maybe the word by is not necessary in containercat catnames after all? NLeeuw (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Category:Naval battles involving pirates is a good comparison? It could work both ways.
  • I assume we agree there is nothing linguistically wrong with this catname. It's not necessary to rename this to Naval battles by pirates involved, because the catname is clear as it is. It's not a containercat, and perhaps it shouldn't be a containercat, because we might be hard-pressed to put all items currently in it into subcategories.
  • On the other hand, does this catname not demonstrate that there is nothing "linguistically" wrong with catnames such as Wars involving countries and Battles involving countries? I do understand that there is a risk of people placing articles directly into Category:Wars involving countries if we decide to rename as proposed, but every once in a while we will just diffuse that to the appropriate subcategory, as we do with all containercats containing articles. NLeeuw (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Battles involving pirates" or "Battles involving NATO" are fine. It's just "involving countries" that fails to convey that it is for subcats by country involved.
    • The May 22 discussion was explicitly only about former countries, and you argued that "involving former countries" was sufficiently clear. I would not strongly oppose that name for a container category, although I prefer to keep names consistent within a hierarchy. However, this nomination fails by trying to apply your preference in that nomination to categories by country, not just by former country.
    • As for using "by" on containers: Category:Battles is a top-level container, like e.g. Category:Dancers, so it doesn't use "by" in its name. However, most of its hierarchy is sorted by parameter using six intermediate container categories, all of which use "by" for clarity – except for one that is currently nominated. – Fayenatic London 12:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough, I didn't know how those top-level containers worked and that "by" is not required for them. Is that the case for all those 188 catnames without "by"? Then perhaps my objection is mistaken. NLeeuw (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Professional wrestlers who boxed amateurly and professionally[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Why do we need people who are at the triple intersection of three sports? Mason (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Professional wrestlers who use Asian mist[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Narrow in subject and non-defining. We don't have other categories were the subject as ever used a specific move. The category description indicates a huge inclusion criteria of using a specific move. "This category is for all professional wrestlers who, at some point, used Asian mist." Mason (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WWE wrestlers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: We don't need to categorize people by which wrestling organization they're signed Mason (talk) 17:25, 14 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]

Category:People from the Austrian Empire of Swiss descent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Extremely narrow category. There's no need to have the intersection between era, nationality, and ethnicity Mason (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:De-extinction genetic engineering[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category only has one page in it and seem to be highly overlapping with Genetic engineering Mason (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Human enhancement[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This seems like too narrow of a category as well as fairly overlapping with existing categories related to Bioethics and Transhumanism Mason (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Twin canopy aircraft[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining nebulous category, discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Twin canopy aircraft?. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No significance. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South Korean anti-feminists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I think we should rename this category to mirror the sibling categories (Female critics of feminism‎ etc) in its parent Critics of feminism. Mason (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles with wanted PUA characters[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Expand abbreviation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Museum collections[edit]

More nominations
Nominator's rationale: Subcategories of Category:Museum collections for individual museums currently use a mixture of the styles "Collection of [the Foo Museum]" and "Collections of [the Foo Museum]". I propose to standardize to "Collection", singular, as that seems more logical; the article Collection (museum) mostly refers to a museum as having a "collection" as opposed to "collections", plural – although "Very large museums will often have many sub-collections, each with its own criteria for collecting. A natural history museum, for example, will have mammals in a separate collection from insects." Even in those cases, though, it's still idiomatic to refer to the collection of, say, the British Museum – see this Ngram. Ham II (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is indeed correct to use a plural categroy name when a museum has multiple named collections, often each with their own subcategory. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As Andy. Collections in plural (for all but the smallest museums) is correct. Especially for our use, where we regularly have subcategories to more specific collections. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the reasons expressed above. I think it would be better to standardize using "Collections", since it is not uncommon for museums to have multiple collections. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and standardize 'Collections' per Sgconlaw. For example, I often refer to Wikipedia's topic collections and not overall 'collection of articles'. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support I'm very puzzled by these opposes - most from people not known for activity in this area. To "standardize using "Collections", since it is not uncommon for museums to have multiple collections" is just NOT an option, as many museums don't have multiple named options. We can indeed use named subcategories though pretty few museum categories actually do so - one exception is Category:British Library. We normally sub-categorize by type of object, area they are from etc. You will very very rarely hear museum people talk about "our collections" rather than "our collection". If, like me, you work a lot in this area, including categories, it is a complete pain to have to keep experimenting to see which form is used by us. Johnbod (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnbod, that sounds like an argument against the proposal to make everything match. The British Library has many collections, so it should stay at Category:British Library collections (in the plural), and museums that only have one collection should use the singular. Do you really want Category:British Library collections to be renamed to the singular? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, will take Johnbod's word for this when it comes to museum information. I personally use 'collection' when discussing Wikipedia ("Wikipedia's spaceflight collection", etc.) but that's a personal choice. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bengali letters[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, only two articles in each of these categories, that is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historic cigar factories[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:SUBJECTIVECAT
While Category:Cigar factories on the National Register of Historic Places has clear inclusion criteria, this category does not. In my subjective opinion, the El Laguito Cigar Factory is not historic but, in the subjective opinion of another editor, it is . The proposed rename would make the category objective. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Whirly-Girls[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge; the name is not what these women are referred to but only the name of the organization. Note that these articles are already in Category:Women aviators by nationality. Hence only single merge. Alternative suggestion: keep and rename to Category:Women helicopter pilots which would expand the scope of the category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I think renaming to Women Helicopter pilots is suitable and appropriate. There is currently a lack of categories on Wikipedia to suitably identify/locate topics/persons related to women's aviation. The current categories make it difficult to find these aviation pioneers, which are few and worthy of inclusion in a category as it is a defining characteristic. This is why I developed the category in the first place. Thank you for the measured discussion here. Nayyn (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While there are categories for female aviators, gyro and rotor pilots have different certifications compared to fixed wing pilots and thus it is a unique and defining category. There are comparatively few women who are helicopter pilots overall, and a category specifically for helicopters is particularly useful addition to Wikipedia. Nayyn (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as per WP:USEFUL [t]here are some pages within Wikipedia that are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument Nayyn (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that "women can be easily traced in Category:Women aviators by nationality." I think the suggestion to "keep and rename to Category:Women helicopter pilots which would expand the scope of the category" makes sense.
I'm not sure what the argument "not a defining characteristic" refers to above? Nayyn (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-defining is a keep tennet of Wikipedia:Categorization. @Nayyn, I strongly encourage you to familiarize yourself with the policies of categorization. Mason (talk) 12:24, 8 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) 02:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep We have Whirly-Girls as an article on a presumably notable organisation. It seems reasonable to preserve a category that contains its members. The rest would be handled by supercats. If it is considered that women with the temerity to fly rotary wing aircraft are a defining characteristic (they'll be wanting to vote next!), then provide a category for that. But that's a separate grouping. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Organisations based in Macau[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Subcats use a mixture of -s- and -z- spelling; seven others currently use z. There is no reason to use the -s- spelling in Macau, diverging from the international default -z-. The voluntary orgs cat is non-standard and an unnecessary layer, and the Scouting and Guiding cat holds only one article. – Fayenatic London 16:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and merge all per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator explicitly mentioned there is a mix of s and z so there is no false premise. Since China consistently uses a z that is a good reason to use z in Macao too. Hong Kong presumably is a different case with a consistent use of s. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly you misunderstood my comment. There is no reason to use the -s- spelling in Macau, diverging from the international default -z-. The claim that there is an international default is the clear false premise. There is none, either on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Hong Kong uses 's' because it was a British colony. Macau was a Portuguese colony and our Portuguese categories also use 's'. What the other Chinese categories use is irrelevant when relating to these two cities because of their very different origins. I do wish editors would stop claiming that the way Americans do things is some sort of international standard. It is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:RETAIN is a fairly compelling argument; is there a reason to ignore it / a reason it does not apply here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per MOS:COMMONALITY. One variety of British (and Commonwealth) English, Oxford English, prefers "z" spellings, so these should be encouraged (at least in subject areas like this which don't have strong ties to Britain or the Commonwealth) as an area of commonality between the main varieties of English. The United Nations uses Oxford English, hence the spelling of World Health Organization and so on. (I wasn't aware of this CfD nomination when I made the same argument at CfDS two days ago. I said then that it was a conversation for another day; that day came sooner than expected!) Ham II (talk) 08:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sandžak[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic. Regional name Sandžak is apparently hardly in use anymore. Even the articles in the history subcategory hardly mention it. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Considering Sandžak is very small area of Serbia, there is really not that much to write but it deserves to have a separate category. I'm not sure if there are rules involved as in how many articles should category have in order to even be considered but I believe that the amount written so far is good enough to keep it. Боки ☎ ✎ 07:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is it defining?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional illeists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 19#Category:Fictional illeists then undeleted out of process. Still seems non-defining. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G4. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G4 doesn't fit, as it was undeleted via Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion rather than recreated. --HPfan4 (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would still support deletion per WP:TRIVIALCAT. I just don't see this as a defining characteristic. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:06, 29 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) 00:54, 6 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) 01:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:EBU stubs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub category and template, newly created to hold just one article. As always, stub categories are not free for just any user to create on a whim for just one article of interest -- the minimum bar for the creation of a stub category is 60 articles, and for that very reason stub categories should normally be proposed for creation by Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting rather than just getting created willy-nilly.
But the parent category Category:European Broadcasting Union has just 14 articles in it of which only two are short enough that tagging them as stubs would be justifiable -- so really the only possible source of any significant amount of content for this is the Category:Eurovision events subcategory, but Category:Eurovision Song Contest stubs and {{Eurovision-stub}} both already exist to cover that off, and the one article that's been filed here already had that on it, thus making this entirely redundant to another stub template and category that we already have. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat and LaundryPizza03: what do you envision happening with the stub template {{EBU-stub}}? Deleted? Made to feed into Category:Eurovision Song Contest stubs? Something else? HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just deleting it would be fine with me, though I'm not averse to repurposing it if somebody's got actual ideas for how it could become useful... (I can attest only that it isn't needed on the one article it's actually on, since that's already tagged as a Eurovsion stub, but I can't swear on pain of death that there aren't other more valid places for it to be used.) Bearcat (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag {{EBU-stub}}.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replace and delete {{EBU-stub}}. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films directed by Wayne Kramer (filmmaker)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Needless disambiguation. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:11, 28 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) 01:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per associated article Wayne Kramer (filmmaker). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:12, 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) 01:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Independent film stubs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Stub category and template that have likely outlived their usefulness. As always, the core purpose of stub categories is to facilitate expanding and improving the stubs enough that they can be pulled out of the stub categories -- so the most useful stub categories are ones that correspond to a community of editors with some expertise in the subject area, who can therefore collaborate on expanding the articles. But there isn't any particular community of independent film experts -- editors' areas of expertise are going to centre around countries and/or genres rather than indie status per se.
That is, there are editors who work on American films regardless of their major vs indie status, and editors who work on Japanese films regardless of their major vs indie status, and editors who specialize in science fiction films regardless of their major vs indie status, and on and so forth, but there aren't really any editors whose area of expertise is "independent films irrespective of country or genre".
This was certainly a good faith creation at the time, when we had far fewer articles about films and far fewer stub categories to group them in -- but the stub category tree is now so much more deeply granularized that this just doesn't represent a particularly useful characteristic to group stubs on anymore, because we have many more stub categories for much more specific and collaborative country and genre and time period groupings than we had in 2006.
I've already gone through the category to ensure that each article also has genre and/or nationality film stub templates on it as well, so nothing will be stranded if it goes, but it's just not at all clear that indie status is nearly as useful a basis for collaboration as the country and genre tags are. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag {{Indie-film-stub}}.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from the Savoyard state[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category Mason (talk) 23:21, 6 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) 01:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dobrujan Tatar[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. It only has two articles: Dobrujan Tatar and Dobrujan Tatar alphabet. Everything can be included in the parent Category:Crimean Tatar language, as Dobrujan Tatar is a dialect of it (and the page on the dialect already includes this category). Super Ψ Dro 23:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might sound confusing due to the geographic names but the Crimean Khanate once extended beyond Crimea and its population was semi-nomadic from what I understand. Dobrujan Tatar is a dialect of the Crimean Tatar language, this has been discussed already at Talk:Dobrujan Tatar. Super Ψ Dro 10:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I had not checked ths talk page. From what I understand of the discussion, the merge target should be Category:Kipchak languages. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it has been not. We are not linguist at all. I, as a speaker of this language, disagree with it. The situation of this language is not clear!!!! Maybe you hear "it's a dialect" from somewhere and act with own knowledge, this is not a solution. The language is in discussion by SIL, and they noticed that the language is different than Crimean Tatar. The discussions are in progress. Zolgoyo (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


July 13[edit]

Category:Counter extremism[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I would have done C2A, but there is no main article and I'm not sure which form to use. Google Ngrams favors counter-extremism with a hyphen, but counterextremism as a compound word is more consistent with similar concepts, such as counterterrorism. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television series by DHX Media[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Current name as of 2019. 190.5.44.166 (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DHX Media franchises[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Current name as of 2019. 190.5.44.166 (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politicization of science[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category. Mason (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Didn't fully register that cat existed when I created the former. Sorry. Biohistorian15 (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Biohistorian15 Please slow down with your categorization. You've made a lot of duplicate or problematic categories in a very short time. Mason (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Liberal eugenicists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersections between values/era/ethnicity and eugenicists. The category creator should refresh themselves on how intersections work and how defining works. Many of their recent additions to these categories are people who aren't eugenicists. Mason (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The talk page of creator Biohistorian15 (talk · contribs) shows concerns about a persistent bias in the race and intelligence topic area, including from the nominator and several others. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not understand LaundryPizza03's statement or how it has anything to do with the inherent value of these categories.
(a) "Mason" has not commented on my talk page in such a fashion AFAIK; (b) I have only minimal interest in race and intelligence as such; (c) these categories are not necessarily POV at all.
  • "Postwar" might be too vague, so I'd understand that one ... but the others seem informative enough.
Biohistorian15 (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Biohistorian15 Then please explain how these intersections are defining. For example, Category:Latinx eugenicists how is being both latinx and a eugenist a defining intersection? You seem extremely unfamiliar with categories, so I urge you to read Wikipedia:Categorization and Wikipedia:Categorizing articles about people. If not deleted, Latix should be renamed to Category:Hispanic and Latino American eugenicists Mason (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is an informative category insofar as most South American eugenicists (mostly in the 1930s) were Lamarckian and not Darwinist in their theoretical underpinnings; accordingly, they def. were a peculiar group of their own. Besides, wouldn't "South American eugenicists" be more neutral absent the ethnic undertones? Biohistorian15 (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the policies I linked to ( The fact that you are using terms like informative, indicates that you are unfamiliar with categorization policies). It would be better to not use Latinx. However South American eugenicists would still be unnecessary as Eugenicists doesn't need to also be diffused by continent. (For the record, I did post a warning on Biohistorian's page about race and intelligence, but removed it after I realized that someone had done so already on the talk page. So my warning was redudant ) Mason (talk) 00:41, 14 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]

Category:1999 in Pakistani law[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Redudant category layer. Please don't create categories like this enmass without populating them Mason (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AfroBasket templates[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category contains only navigational boxes. And also it's a subcategory of a navigational boxes category. Maiō T. (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Conjunctivitis[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful for navigation to only have two pages that are already interlinked Mason (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stealth video games by series[edit]

Nominator's rationale: "Category:Stealth video games" currently only contains this following subcategory, making this category redundant, even though there are seven stealth game franchises on this category, I'm pretty sure that still does not matter. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Langi people[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, the main article redirects to Lango people. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Perhaps leave as a redirect? Mason (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Expatriates from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in the Dutch Republic[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Narrow, underpopulated intersection between two fomer countries. Mason (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nilotic people[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer Mason (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only contents are under a subcategory of the merge target. It is important to distinguish categories of people by ethnic group from categories about ethnic groups. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jongmyo shrines[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Collectively contain one article and one associated topic. All entries are already in appropriate subcategories of the parents. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03
I have to admit that above two categories are redundant. To make an excuse, I had to clear out large amount of original researches created by an user called 'Immanuelle' based on his poor reading of Chinese characters. As you can discover from the edit history, above two categories are created by him by merely merging clearly different concepts between each East Asian civilizations. He did such merge only for the reason that those concept share same Chinese characters. (As you can see, sharing a Chinese character dose not make sure that such concepts are internationally overlapping) Though at that time, I did not want to fight with him by requesting delete on above two categories, as that user was so active, making me worry about spending all the time with fighting against meaningless foggy articles. So I rather chose to relocate articles among such redundant categories, as timid resistance against him. Sorry for all the mess. I also agree to delete above two categories now.
Yet I have to insist that third category called 'Category:Jongmyo' need to be kept, as it is useful category to allocate articles related to 'Jongmyo' in Seoul. I plan to create articles on Jongmyo park [ko], Jongmyo Jeongjeon [ko] and other related topics on Jongmyo, and those articles will find their address relatively correct inside such 'Category:Jongmyo' than any other categories. You can find such potential candidates by looking at interwiki connected category at Korean wikipedia '분류:종묘' -- SCMBD (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those articles exist in enwiki except Jongmyo jerye and possibly some of the people enshrined at Jongmyo. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Far-right extremists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category as we already have Category:Nazis and Category:Fascists. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BLPCAT and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, see also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_7#Category:Extremists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LaundryPizza03. Doug Weller talk 10:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Far-right extremism[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unclear distinction. Far-right is already extreme. MSMST1543 (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:World War II national military histories[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename for alignment with Category:Military history by country and Category:World War II by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Korean War national military histories[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with one subcategory each. The subcategories have been added to Category:Military history of the United States by war. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Years in (Portuguese) Mozambique[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge/rename, in the first place this nomination fixes the inconsistent mix of Mozambique and Portuguese Mozambique. Per this earlier discussion, Mozambique becomes the standard. Second, there are hardly any event articles until shortly before Mozambique's independence so the nomination alsp proposes merging years to decades until 1970. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sacked Hindu temples in the Muslim period in the Indian subcontinent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Although Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_25#Category:Religious_buildings_and_structures_destroyed_in_the_Muslim_period_in_the_Indian_subcontinent eschewed the word destroyed in favor of sacked, the title here is ungrammatical. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zero-level elevation points[edit]

Nominator's rationale: As per Category_talk:Zero-level_elevation_points#Scope. fgnievinski (talk) 03:51, 5 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) 03:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per talk. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page has been preserved in Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 13. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Year by category — used with year parameter(s) ≠ year in page title[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I feel like spelling out "does not equal" would be helpful; do you know how to type the "does not equal" sign? HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boorana people[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The only person is this category doesn't have Boorana mentioned anywhere in the page. The category creator needs to populate the categories they create. Mason (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


July 12[edit]

Category:Spanish and Portuguese Jews[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This topic category either needs to be purged, split, or renamed. There are way too many individual people in this category instead of in Spanish Jews or Portuguese Jews Mason (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish British slave owners[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This non-defining intersection between occupation+nationality+religion/ethnicity is problematic, under WP:EGRS Mason (talk) 23:08, 12 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]

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]

Category:Interstate highway formatting and function templates[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Single-page category. Merge to both parents. – Fayenatic London 21:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Germans from Russia[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename to align with other German diaspora sibling categories. This is not a case for speedy because there is no main article with this name. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Mason (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Norway formatting and function templates[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Manual merge as small category (2 templates + 1 subcat + 2 subcats). If not merged, rename to Norway utility templates, following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 28#Category:Wikipedia formatting and function templates; but no other countries have a country subcat for utility templates in Category:Wikipedia utility templates. – Fayenatic London 17:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australia category header templates[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Contains only 1 template. No need for double merge, as template is already in another subcat of the other parent. – Fayenatic London 17:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

X films -> Films about X[edit]

Nominator's rationale: As with other recent category renames, change to make it clear that these categories are intended for scenarios where X plays a significant role in the film, not merely an incidental one. DonIago (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baseball players from Ames, Iowa[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge; only two articles. No object to recreation if there are more articles to be added. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are now 3 articles. There are over 200 articles in Category:Baseball players from Iowa and Ames is one of the larger cities in Iowa. I'd prefer to keep or at least rename Category:Baseball players from Story County, Iowa which would be slightly larger.--User:Namiba 21:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Namiba's comment? (Keeping it to diffuse Category:Baseball players from Iowa and possibly renaming to broaden its scope.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See above relisting comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia category maintenance[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No distinction in contents. This is a downmerge, and will require manual handling of categories in the target. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:17, 12 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]


July 11[edit]

Category:Cigarette holders[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only contents are 3 files; cannot be expanded beyond the main article Cigarette holder (which isn't in the category). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2018 in Tamil Nadu[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Isolated category. – Fayenatic London 12:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2014 in Odisha[edit]

Nominator's rationale: As above. Redirect following precedent for former siblings. This group of four categories contain only 1 article apart from the establishments subcats. – Fayenatic London 16:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Economics category header templates[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary layer, all the contents are in the subcat Category:Economics chronology category header templates. – Fayenatic London 12:10, 11 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]

Category:Mongol states[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, it is unclear how the categories are different from each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The difference is that some of the Mongol states were not physically located in present-day Mongolia. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:03, 1 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) 00:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Former countries in Mongolian history.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works about villains[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This topic is really vague in the extreme, almost anything can be called a "villain" by someone or characterized as being "about" a villain if they feature heavily in the plot. It doesn't make sense as a category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Works with villain protagonists. Looking at one of the articles, I think this is supposed to be about works with a villain as the protagonist, such as Soon I Will Be Invincible. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Category:Works featuring villain protagonists, like the video game subcategory, Category:Video games featuring villain protagonists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Family of Boris Johnson[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Reverse speedy name change. It was an error on my part; I didn't realize that the original version was the correct form. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:34, 3 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) 02:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16th to 19th century in (Portuguese) Mozambique[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, all single-article categories, not helpful for navigation. Also consistently use "Portuguese Mozambique", as all articles refer to the Portuguese colony, rather than a mix of "Mozambique" and "Portuguese Mozambique", and Category:Portuguese Mozambique needs to exist anyway. I am proposing the latter because we need Category:Portuguese Mozambique anyway. Splitting in four century categories isn't necessary because the history, establishments and disestablishments categories will ultimately contain only 10, 14 and 4 direct articles respectively. This is follow-up on an earlier discussion with User:Fayenatic london. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with most of these, however,
Mason (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mason I think you have a good point but please clarify these links, which currently appear mistaken. – Fayenatic London 12:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, let me try to be less lazy this time 🤣 . Some of the relevant parent categories are missing, mainly occupation and century. Specifically,
In theory the women merge targets could be fine if the category is properly non-diffused, but I'd rather have the redundancy in case someone gets incorrectly removed from a "redundant layer" by the time the bot gets to this. Mason (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because some categories have not been tagged for a week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


July 10[edit]

Category:PAX (event)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Category with only two articles. One the main topic, and the other a list. Now that is just redundant. Articles are also already located in "Penny Arcade (webcomic)" QuantumFoam66 (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sephirot[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The corresponding article is titled 'Sefirot', which is also used throughout (most) of the related articles and on nav templates. Skyerise (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:12th-century Arab historians[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Isolated category. Upmerge to 12th-century historians of the medieval Islamic world Mason (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on reverse merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 23:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus on direction of merging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Premier League clubs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Currently empty but, until just now, it had only Leeds United in it. A total of 51 clubs have played in the Premier League and all except Leeds were in Category:Premier League clubs. Has someone been having a laugh? If the PLC category is meant to hold all 51 clubs, then FPLC is redundant. On the other hand, keeping FPLC will mean seasonal updates in both categories which no one will want to do. PearlyGigs (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be no set purpose for the Category:Association football clubs by former league and its subcats. Are we talking about defunct clubs, or about clubs that have gone upwards from an amateur league to a professional one, or about all promotions/relegations. Take Category:Former Highland Football League teams for example. This includes Aberdeen, whose first team never played in the league, although one of their reserve teams did. Then there are four other clubs currently in the SPFL, three former clubs which became entities of Caley Thistle, and three fully defunct clubs. What exactly is the scope of that category?
  • As for the FPLC category, it is obviously not being maintained and I doubt if it ever will be. I'd have thought that the scope of Category:Premier League clubs is clubs whose teams have played in the PL, even if for only one season back in the 1990s. Similarly, I would expect to find the likes of Cove Rangers in Category:Highland Football League teams, as well as in the SPFL category.
  • We have to remember that categories provide essential navigation for the readers and so their scope and purpose must be certain. The use of "former" in a category title is bound to confuse and mislead. Does it mean "defunct" (like Wimbledon), does it mean "once upon a time" (like Oldham), or does it mean "not at the moment" (like Leeds). PearlyGigs (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an excellent point by Perspicax and I admit it didn't occur to me. I agree the proposed discussion is unnecessary within the context of this nomination. The question is whether relegated members of the PL, many of whom will eventually regain promotion, should be categorised as "former" or should be categorised as having played in the league. Remember that when I found Category:Former Premier League clubs, it contained Leeds only, so it was obviously not being maintained. Teterev53 did a partial population after this nomination was raised. PearlyGigs (talk) 08:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and repopulate per above discussion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Blind sports people[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete; I think the two categories are unrelated and all of the sportspeople with vision issues are in the second category. If kept then rename to "Category:Blind sportspeople" since there isn't a gap between "sports" and "people". Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Revolutionary Communist International[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The Revolutionary Communist International already had a category under their old name and instead of moving it their current name, a new category was created instead. I believe this was a mistake because the new category doesn't have the old one's revision history. Charles Essie (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dark music genres[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete vague category, undefinable. Similar difficulties were voiced at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darkness in music. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:OR. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would have expected this to be an extension of a main article called Dark music, which could provide some substance and, per nomination, actually define the concept. We could do with knowing the origin of the term, which might help. PearlyGigs (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian cricket writers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Merge; only "nationality category" in Cricket writers. One of them seems to be an organization or newspaper. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Martial arts writers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Merge with parent category (this is the only nationality category and its not needed as the category itself is small) and Purge any non-writers out. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom rationale. Let'srun (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New York City local newspapers, in print[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I don't understand the point of this category. They are newspapers published locally in NYC. I guess WP:OVERLAPCAT applies. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Category:1838 establishments in Schleswig-Holstein[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Single-page category. More establishments in Schleswig-Holstein could probably be added, but year categories do not appear necessary. – Fayenatic London 11:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Nepal on film[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Establishments in the Mrauk-U Kingdom by century[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory and no siblings. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Years of the 18th century in Great Britain[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, the category suggests that it is about the island of Great Britain (as it also contains the early 18th-century years in England and Scotland) but there aren't any sibling categories for the island, so this is merely confusing in relationship to the Kingdom of England (see below). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Years in Great Britain[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, this category contains the period starting in 1707, and per parent Category:Kingdom of Great Britain, and to make a clearer distinction versus Category:Years of the 18th century in Great Britain which also covers the earlier years in England and Scotland if we need that category at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YearParamUsageCheck[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I recently WP:BOLDMOVEd {{YearParamUsageCheck}} to {{year parameter usage check}} per WP:TPN. Part of this is cleanup from that move, but some is cleanup for other reasons. Category:YearParamUsageCheck templates is unhelpful, because it only contains two templates (note that {{year parameter usage check}} and {{year parameter usage check/core}} are two parts of the same template). Interlinking in the see also is sufficient; the category can be merged to Category:Category header templates. Category:Templates using YearParamUsageCheck can be deleted – it only contains one template – {{year by category}} – plus its documentation and sandbox. Category:YearParamUsageCheck tracking categories‎ should be renamed to Category:Year parameter usage check tracking categories‎ to match the template's name. Finally, Category:Wikipedia YearParamUsageCheck can then be deleted, as it will only contain the newly-renamed Category:Year parameter usage check tracking categories‎. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Classical accordionists by nationality[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This category layer is redudant Mason (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


July 9[edit]

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]

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]

Category:Horrid Henry characters[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The only article in the category is already present in Category:Horrid Henry, and is not centric on the character themselves. Could be made into a "character redirects to list" category, but it does not seem like there are enough redirects for that. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nexter Systems[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with article name per WP:C2D. Have moved article to match subject company's new legal name, effective 8 April 2024 (see KNDS_France#cite_note-14). Huntthetroll (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This category should match the article, which more importantly matches the current (as of 2024) official name of the extant organization. I have also prepared a CfD on Commons to change it there as well. Josh (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EstcatCountry categories[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Tracking categories which are not actually used by the template in question, {{Establishment category in country}}. Delete. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 21:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eiei-year tracking categories[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I originally nominated these categories for C2D per {{Educational institutions establishment category by year}}, but these categories are not used by that template. Delete 'em all. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 21:48, 9 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]

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]

Eponymous Formula One driver categories[edit]

Included in this nomination are the following categories:
Nominator's rationale: These single-article (minus the eponymous article) Formula One driver eponymous categories are unnecessary per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings and structures by decade 530s‎-990s[edit]

more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge, in this period this is a redundant category layer with only occasional articles next to the religious buildings subcategory. The articles need to be moved manually because some of them are already in e.g. a fortifications by century subcategory or in an establishments by year subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Old style serif typefaces[edit]

Nominator's Rationale: In Vox-ATypI classification#Classicals, Old style serif typefaces can be categorized into 3 subclasses. All of these 3 subclasses has their own categories in French Wikipedia. However, only 2 out of 3 of those French Wikipedia categories has a corresponding category in English Wikipedia:
  1. Venetian (fr:Catégorie:Police d'écriture humane, currently corresponding to Category:Old style serif typefaces)
  2. Garalde (fr:Catégorie:Police d'écriture garalde, currently corresponding to newly-created Category:Garalde serif typefaces)
  3. Transitional (fr:Catégorie:Police d'écriture réale, currently corresponding to Category:Transitional serif typefaces)

I suggest that the Category:Old style serif typefaces be renamed to Category:Venetian serif typefaces. Also, I proposes that any articles that are already in both Category:Transitional serif typefaces and Category:Old style serif typefaces be removed from the Category:Old style serif typefaces (as it's redundant).Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉edits 04:57, 8 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) 00:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 9 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]

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]

Category:History of Malaysia since Independence[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename per parent Category:Contemporary history by country that I just added. Else at least change "Independence" to "independence". Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spelling change - what might seem contemporary in some contexts may not be understood clearly as to the specific starting point is actually contemporary or not JarrahTree 08:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:History of Malaysia (1957–present). That matches most other categories in Category:Contemporary history by country. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more comments on the alt rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename target still needs to be decided upon.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Phobias[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category contains both anxiety disorders such as claustrophobia and forms of prejudice such as mormonophobia (a redirect to anti-Mormonism). I would like to remove the latter from this category and place them instead in (appropriate sub-categories of) Category:Prejudice and discrimination. gnu57 20:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The immediate proposal has been WP:BOLDly adopted (as it did not actually require a CFD to take place), but the D in CFD is for discussion and I am relisting so that User:Quantling's point can be discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it does not. There are some sources [5], but they are not WP:MEDRS. My very best wishes (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DVD interactive technology[edit]

Nominator's rationale: More common name, I don't hear "DVD interactive technology" as often. Also, the original name omits the usage of "games". QuantumFoam66 (talk) 05:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:02, 1 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) 01:09, 9 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]

Category:Hispanic and Latino American socialists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between specific ethnicity and specific political orientation, per egrs Mason (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


July 8[edit]

Category:Slavs by political orientation[edit]

Nominator's rationale: redundant category that conflates nationalities with ethnicity Mason (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Critics of socialism[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category Mason (talk) 23:45, 8 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]

Category:Jewish classical liberals[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Do we really need an intersection with ethnicity and liberal/tarians? This doesn't meet the criteria for EGRS as far as I can tell. And the parent of one of the cats was recently deleted/merged Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_3#Classical_liberals. Mason (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:03, 9 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]

Category:District 1 of Zürich[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Same district Solidest (talk) 22:39, 8 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]

Category:Fictional villains[edit]

Nominator's rationale: It is always correct to use the word "Villains" only in a fictional context. Such classification is not used in encyclopedias to characterize real humans. Solidest (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it was already nominated for merge once Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 10#Category:Fictional villains, but AHI-3000 did a split again a year ago. Solidest (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bangladesh–Bahrain relations[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Duplicates. Solidest (talk) 18:46, 8 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]

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]

Category:Mughals[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This newly created category seems redundant with Category:Mughal Empire and it's many subcats. Gjs238 (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jersey equestrians[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete "Jersey equestrians" and dual merge "Jersey male equestrians" per nom. Only one category layer and one article. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:30, 8 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]

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]

Category:Cartoon Network Studios pilots and shorts[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There isn't anything related between a short and a television pilot. This might mean there isn't enough content to justify both categories but that isn't a reason to create this unrelated category. Gonnym (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Public art by indigenous artists from the Americas[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, only one article in the category, this is not helpful for navigation to related articles. There is no need to merge, the article is already in other subcategories of the parents. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Urban development in India[edit]

Nominator's rationale: downmerge, no clear distinction, Urban development redirects to Urban planning and there is no tree for Category:Urban development by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom. Gjs238 (talk) 14:06, 8 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#Current_discussions"