Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 25
May 27 >

May 26

Category:Mythological cycle

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 21:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The Mythological Cycle is a proper noun and should be capitalized. -- YukaSylvie ( talk) 23:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Speedy rename per C2A. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Speedy rename per WP:C2A. – Konanen ( talk) 11:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Urdu-language historical novelists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There's no other language categories for this genre of novelists. The two category members are already in historical novelists for their nationality. Mason ( talk) 23:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge per nom. No other language category for novelists is subdivided by genre. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Urdu-language fiction writers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per the parent Category:Fiction writers Fiction writers is "intended as a parent for more specific subcategories only; writers should not be filed directly in this category. Please reclassify writers found here into more specific categories by their country of origin and/or type of fiction (novelists, short story writers, etc.)" I interpret this to mean that we shouldn't have a category dedicated to fiction writers for a specific language. (And notably the only category of Fiction writers like this) Mason ( talk) 23:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Youth activists

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Child activists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Reverse merge, which should also come with renaming all subcategories from "child" to "youth". QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 08:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment. Reverse merge would conflict though with all of the Fooian children categories. Mason ( talk) 23:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose merging, in either direction - I've slightly reworded for greater clarity the head note for Category:Child activists to read as follows: "This category is for individuals who were notable as activists during childhood, i.e. before the age of 15." Whereas the head note for Category:Youth activists refers to the age range of 15 to 24 years, which conforms with the definition of "youth" that was adopted by the United Nations. Anomalous+0 ( talk) 08:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • @ Anomalous+0: if it is really desirable to make this distinction (which I am not convinced of) it means that every subcategory by nationality needs to be split too. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Paintings of Hebrew Bible themes

Nominator's rationale: merge, a split between Hebrew Bible and Old Testament does not make too much sense in biblical art which largely originates from Christianity. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Reverse merge, Hebrew Bible is the main tree here. NLeeuw ( talk) 18:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep, but Upmerge & redirect Category:Paintings based on the Old Testament to its parents per Fayenatic london. NLeeuw ( talk) 18:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • It is not a "main" tree per se. Old Testament is different (order of bible books), broader (with deuterocanonical books) and more applicable to topics that are more exclusively associated with Christianity. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Whether deuterocanonical books are included depends entirely on denomination. "Hebrew Bible" is the name for the 39 books common to Judaism and Christianity, and I see no reason why Christianity should be regarded as more important.
    On second thought, it might be better to upmerge Category:Paintings based on the Old Testament to its parents, as it is currently a mostly redundant layer. How does that sound? NLeeuw ( talk) 22:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Re "Whether deuterocanonical books are included depends entirely on denomination", as things stand the "deuterocanonical books" category is within the "Old Testament" one, so isn't this an argument against the status quo as well? But it's resolved if Category:Paintings based on the Old Testament is upmerged to its parents, leaving the subdivisions of the (Christian) Bible as "Hebrew Bible", "deuterocanonical books" and "New Testament" – with no "Old Testament"? I hope I've got that right. Ham II ( talk) 16:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Yes, you've got that right! NLeeuw ( talk) 10:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on FL's proposal would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure if I understand FL's proposal. I'll try to read it again carefully. NLeeuw ( talk) 06:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Sacred excrements, I still don't understand lol. I'm gonna need a pc with 2 monitors, or work it out on paper, but I'm on a train and haven't got either. I'll have to return to this question later. NLeeuw ( talk) 06:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The problem is one of semantics: what is meant by "Old Testament" is dependent on religious tradition. As I said above, Whether deuterocanonical books are included depends entirely on denomination. This is best illustrated by Old Testament#Content: the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) (24 books) corresponds exactly with the Protestant Old Testament (39 books; same contents, just split into more books), but the Catholic Old Testament (46 books) adds 7 deuterocanonical books, and the Orthodox Old Testament (49 books) adds 10 deuterocanonical books. Therefore, arguably the "Old Testament" tree (at least when it comes to Biblical art) is a WP:POV-based WP:ARBITRARYCAT, which presumes that Roman Catholicism / Eastern Orthodoxy are theologically "correct", and that Protestantism and Judaism are theologically "wrong". Obviously, this is not a POV Wikipedia can adopt. The simplest and most elegant solution is to phase out the "Old Testament" art tree wherever it is an unhelpful WP:OVERLAPCAT or WP:NARROWCAT, and have an independent "deuterocanonical books" art tree that is a direct child of Category:Biblical art, separate from "Hebrew Bible" art. Template:Hebrew Bible category (widely used in the "Hebrew Bible" tree) already suggests such an approach; although that might itself suggest a "Jewish/Protestant" POV, it is one informed by pragmatism in categorisation.
On closer inspection, it appears Fayenatic and I completely agree, and we are suggesting the same initial steps towards solving the problem. But more is necessary to fix the entire problem. Just phasing out "Old Testament" is not enough. As I suggested, "Hebrew Bible" needs to be Purged of "incestuous" parent/sibling/child categorisation, and "deuterocanonical books" needs a separate, independent tree directly under Category:Biblical art in order to fully disentangle this mess. Good day, and hopefully my commentary is helpful to you all. NLeeuw ( talk) 18:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I'll add some suggestions for a follow-up discussion. Not to be added to this one, but hopefully give better insight which direction we should probably be taking if we'd like to resolve the issues. NLeeuw ( talk) 19:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Suggested solutions for a follow-up discussion
  • Keep and follow the course of action NLeeuw has outlined instead (of removing "Old Testament" categories, etc.). Ham II ( talk) 07:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • @ Nederlandse Leeuw: it is not surprising, and I think not even wrong, that the art category deviates from the rest. Nearly all notable biblical art is art made by Christians, for the larger part made by Catholic people who were used to an Old Testament including the Deuterocanonical books. I certainly agree that this is a POV issue but it seems reasonable to take the artists' POV as leading here. @ Johnbod: what do you think of it? Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for the notification, Marcocapelle, I hadn't seen this! I think to "have an independent "deuterocanonical books" art tree that is a direct child of Category:Biblical art, separate from "Hebrew Bible" art" will confuse people, as the term is these days unfamiliar to most. I think the structure should be:
Biblical
Old Testament
Hebrew Bible
Deuterocanonical books
New Testament
And User:Fayenatic london, can we NOT use "themes" when we mean "subjects" - "love", "death" and "war" are themes, the Sacrifice of Isaac and Tobias and the Angel (my new Deuterocanonical article) are subjects. I don't personally object to cats being "simultaneously siblings and parents" - sometimes you need that. Johnbod ( talk) 01:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Thank you Johnbod – I agree with you in full. Happy to nominate the "themes" categories for renaming as soon as this discussion is closed. As for NLeeuw's and Ham II's suggestions, I don't mind rationalising small categories so long as the contents are not lost from the parents. – Fayenatic London 07:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Many thanks! Agree on the last point too. Johnbod ( talk) 15:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
the term ["deuterocanonical books"] is these days unfamiliar to most. How is that an argument for or against anything? Unless we don't want any category name with "deuterocanonical books" in it at all, it neither supports Johnbod's proposal nor mine. We need a good reason why the deuterocanonical books should or shouldn't be part of an "Old Testament" tree without resulting in a WP:POV-based WP:ARBITRARYCAT. My analysis shows that the "Old Testament" tree is the cause of the confusion here, and the easiest solution is three separate, independent branches for "Hebrew Bible", "deuterocanonical books", and "New Testament" art. Our personal theological beliefs as to whether the deuterocanonical books should canonically be considered part of the "Old Testament" or not are unhelpful here. Template:Hebrew Bible category explains what some people believe and what other people believe, but in the end indicates that we need a pragmatic approach for navigating categories. NLeeuw ( talk) 02:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
"Our personal theological beliefs" are nothing to do with it (& I doubt Fayenatic & I have the same). It seems a good deal more POV to me to exclude the "deuterocanonical books" than to include them. Johnbod ( talk) 04:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Concur with Johnbod. They are part of the Bible or they aren't, but if they are part of the Bible then they are certainly part of the Old Testament too. There is no faith or denomination that distinguishes three canonical "testaments". (Fwiw, I did not grow up with the deuterocanonical books.) Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    As far as scholars are concerned, all three are part of the "Bible". "Old Testament" is just a term that isn't often used by scholars anymore, because it is ambiguous and POV. "Hebrew Bible" is the term most have settled on as a compromise between various Christian definitions (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) of what "Old Testament" means, although it isn't used by Jews (as the "Old / New" terminology suggests they are lagging behind, when in fact they don't recognise the NT as a 'sequel'); the terms "Torah" and "Tenakh" used by Jews, but not by Christians; and all sorts of readers, researchers and scholars who approach these texts from a secular, academic or scientific perspective with a need to not follow any sort of denominational language, but clear and unambiguous terminology. (Incidentally, nobody has a problem with the term "New Testament", and everyone uses that for categorisation and such).
    It may seem odd that we've got this tripartite of Hebrew Bible, deuterocanonical books and New Testament, especially when one is raised with the idea that there are just an Old and a New Testament, and we can/should argue over which deuterocanonicals should be in or out the Old one. But as a historian and a Wikipedian, I have gotten used to reading and writing about them in this way: HB, db, NT. I can link to numerous examples of sources in articles I've written that use the HB/db/NT terminology and have pretty much phased out "Old Testament" already. NLeeuw ( talk) 21:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Well, that's you (and perhaps not happening in English anyway). It's pretty clear that in non-academic use "Old Testament" has plenty of life in it. The deuterocanonical books are not part of the Hebrew Bible (= Tanakh); apart from anything else their [[Biblical_languages#Languages_of_the_deuterocanonical_books|original languages are a complicated question, and not all even have ancient Hebrew texts. The Torah = Pentateuch is only the first 5 OT books. Johnbod ( talk) 03:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    The deuterocanonical books are not part of the Hebrew Bible. Yes, that exactly is why they should be in separate category trees.
    Example text Yes, strictly speaking, though "Torah" is also often used pars pro toto for the entire Tanakh, which is another reason why "Torah" is an unhelpful and ambiguous term, and we should favour "Hebrew Bible" instead.
    I should add that I have primarily been reading and writing about the texts of the Hebrew Bible / deuterocanonical books / New Testament, not studying the artworks based on them. It may be worth doing a quickscan on how modern art historians frame their research. NLeeuw ( talk) 06:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, and the New Testament (2000). This is an example of the HB / DB / NT division in a book title that focuses on textual analysis. We'll have to see whether this is also frequently used for modern biblical art studies.
    NLeeuw ( talk) 06:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Nobody is denying that what you call "HB / DB / NT" are valid and necessary divisions. The question is whether the grouping of the first two as "OT" is useful, in the same way that the NT is sub-divided into gospels, epistles and Acts, & the HB often sub-divided in various ways. This despite agreement across denominations and religions as to the status of these is much more general. Johnbod ( talk) 15:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Well, I think they need to be both valid and useful. And all these terms, HB, DB, Apocrypha, NT, OT etc. have, each to a different degree, some validity and usefulness. From a Christian perspective, OT is quite useful perhaps even theologically necessary in order to explain and justify the existence of the "New" in NT (something which Jews and other non-Christians have no need for). But from the perspective of Wikipedia categorisation, it's more complicated. At any rate, I'm afraid it is going to be difficult to reach agreement on this. I'm quite inspired and motivated now to start reading and writing about visual criticism of biblical art (my quickscan have yielded interesting results from J. Cheryl Exum and Andrea M. M. Sheaffer, Envisioning Judith (2013), and others), but that's gonna take more time than this CfM should run. NLeeuw ( talk) 16:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I should note that Category:Paintings based on the Old Testament and 13 other categories with "Old Testament" in their titles have the boilerplate text " Old Testament refers to the various Christian canons of the Hebrew Bible ... Also included under the categorization of "Old Testament" are the deuterocanonical books of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox canons" – so where OT is used for categorisation, Wikipedia's current way of dealing with these problems is to choose the most expansive definition.
The Visual Commentary on Scripture website, as current an example of "biblical art studies" as one could ask for, has a section on the "Old Testament & Apocrypha" (grouped together). Ham II ( talk) 19:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Hah, well, that sure doesn't make this any less complicated! Here I was thinking that Template:Hebrew Bible category was indicative of which direction categorisation should be taking, but Template:OT category seems to suggest the opposite, and that lots of WP:OVERLAPCAT / WP:NARROWCAT is fine. Now that I mention it, why didn't I think of invoking WP:OVERLAPCAT / WP:NARROWCAT before? "Hebrew Bible" and "deuterocanonical books" will never overlap, but "Old Testament" will always strongly overlap with "Hebrew Bible", and there could always be confusion and disagreement as to whether "deuterocanonical books" (or apocrypha) should be a included under "Old Testament" or not.
Anyway, as interesting as this has been, it seems evident that the proposal will not receive enough support. The only 3 explicit !votes here have all voiced a Keep. The rest of the discussions show no consensus about how to move forward either. If I am to convince the others that "Old Testament" has become a rather obsolete term in scholarly studies on biblical art, I will have to do a lot more reading first.
I should say that reading J. Cheryl Exum's paper Toward a Genuine Dialogue between the Bible and Art (2012) yesterday was an extremely interesting introduction to this field, but nowhere near to answering that question. (The only indication is that the term "Hebrew Bible" appears 3 times in titles cited in the Bibliography against 1 time for "Old Testament", but that is way too small a sample size, and Exum herself uses neither in the main text (only "Bible" and "biblical"), and the terms "deuterocanonical" and "apocrypha" appear nowhere either). NLeeuw ( talk) 16:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
It is certainly true that "Hebrew Bible" will these days usually be used rather than OT when say Genesis is being discussed, especially in American works, but that does does not itself reduce the utility of OT as a term distinguishing from NT. My impression is that "Hebrew Bible" used in this way only became common relatively recently, this century perhaps. Johnbod ( talk) 17:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
In the grand scheme of things, yes, it seems that "Hebrew Bible" has become more common than "Old Testament", certainly amongst textual scholars, in the past 100 years. My first impression is that it seems that scholars of biblical art are following this trend, although somewhat slower. But my first impression may not be representative at all. NLeeuw ( talk) 18:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Ok I just stumbled upon A Comparative Analysis of Depictions of Female Beauty in the Hebrew Bible and the Jewish Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (2015), PhD thesis by Joanna K. Vitale of Oxford University (I'm not sure what her religious views are). "Hebrew Bible" appears 311 times, "Old Testament" 31 times (interestingly, she only uses it once herself; all other instances are in quotations, or in titles in the Bibliography), "deuterocanonical" 3 times (once herself, twice in titles), "apocryph*" 211 times ("New Testament" appears 3 times, all 3 in titles). But 'depictions' are mostly meant in a textual sense here, not in terms of visual arts like paintings, so unfortunately it's not yet very helpful for our purposes here. NLeeuw ( talk) 21:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Two beheadings and a haircut: The (mis) treatment of biblical women in Belle Époque painting (2017) PhD thesis by Katie Louise Sproull of the University of Glasgow, is exactly the right scope for us. Unfortunately, Sproull rarely uses any of our terms: "Hebrew Bible" 5 times (twice in titles), "deuterocanonical" 2 times, "Old Testament" 3 times (twice in titles), "New Testament" 3 times (once in titles), "apocryph*" never. Again the sample size is too small to be reliable. If it were representative, however, it would support my impression that scholars of biblical art are also moving towards "Hebrew Bible" over "Old Testament" (a rate of 5:3; 4:1 in her own words), but at a slower pace than biblical textual scholars (a rate of 10:1, and even then in 30 out of 31 cases in reference to the works of others rather than in her own words). NLeeuw ( talk) 21:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Bhutan-tv-stub

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge Category:Bhutanese television stubs to Category:Asian television stubs and Category:Bhutan stubs. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to parent ( Category:Bhutan stubs) per standard WPSS practice. Grutness... wha? 03:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    • @ Grutness: when you say redirect, do you mean keep the template but have it populate Category:Bhutan stubs? (This also applies to other nominations on this page; I am arbitrarily picking one rather than pinging you a bunch of times.) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 23:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, exactly. That's standard stubbing practice. If the template is there, then it can still be used, it just doesn't need a category. It's the categories which should be nominated for deletion, not the templates. Stub templates are quite often either left unused, emptied, or simply used to fill a parent category. Grutness... wha? 04:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Bhutanese television stubs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I think the merge outcome is more convenient, even though we have zero articles about Bhutanese TV programs. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:India-cricket-season-stub

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge Category:Indian cricket season stubs to Category:Indian sport stubs and Category:cricket season stubs. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 02:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Indian cricket season stubs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Template:2020s-Western-film-stub

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge Category:2020s Western (genre) film stubs to Category:Western (genre) film stubs and Category:2020s film stubs. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:2020s Western (genre) film stubs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Template:1960s-Tamil-film-stub

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge Category:1960s Tamil-language film stubs to Category:Tamil-language film stubs and Category:1960s film stubs. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 02:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to parent ( Category:Tamil-language film stubs) per standard WPSS practice. In many of today's nominations, it looks like there is serious undersorting of stubs rather than an actual lack of need for their use. Grutness... wha? 03:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:1960s Tamil-language film stubs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Template:New Zealand-cricket-ground-stub

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge Category:New Zealand cricket ground stubs to Category:New Zealand sport stubs and Category:Cricket ground stubs. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:New Zealand cricket ground stubs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Religion in China

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: rename, "in" is an odd preproposition in relation to a dynasty, "under" or "during" makes more sense. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
support per nom Mason ( talk) 00:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:1950s-UK-single-stub

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge Category:1950s British single stubs to Category:1950s single stubs and Category:British single stubs. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 02:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to parent ( Category:British single stubs) per standard WPSS practice. In many of today's nominations, it looks like there is serious undersorting of stubs rather than an actual lack of need for their use. Grutness... wha? 03:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:1950s British single stubs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 18:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Template:Uruguay-cemetery-stub

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#Template:Uruguay-cemetery-stub

Template:WashingtonCountyID-geo-stub

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge Category:Washington County, Idaho geography stubs to Category:Idaho geography stubs. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 02:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to parent ( Category:Idaho geography stubs) per standard WPSS practice. Grutness... wha? 03:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Keep; Generically, it would be great to eliminate unused stub classes, but:
    1) it would be the ONLY county without the category
    2) There are some articles that are weak "Starts" that are in there.
    3) There should remain a "place" to put new stubs when needed.
    Mjquinn_id ( talk) 13:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Washington County, Idaho geography stubs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 18:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Template:WestIndies-cricket-season-stub

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge the category to Category:Caribbean stubs and Category:cricket season stubs. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:West Indies cricket season stubs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 18:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Template:Wisconsin-road-stub

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: redirect to Category:Midwestern United States road stubs. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Wisconsin road stubs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 18:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Category:North American sports venue stubs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. As this nomination was explicitly about the category and not the template, I am going to abstain from relisting this discussion to talk about {{ North-America-cricket-ground-stub}} (which was not tagged). However, I will ping @ Grutness, Her Pegship, LaundryPizza03, and Fayenatic london: in case any of them wish to nominate the template. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 02:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only contents are a stub template that does not populate the category. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Grutness's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 18:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Executed French people

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: manually merge, follow-up after this earlier discussion. Only the second reason of the previous discussion applies now: trivial intersection with location. Manually merge insofar the articles aren't already in one of the other subcategories e.g. Category:French people executed by Nazi Germany. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cricket articles needing attention to tagging

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category not found in code of Template:WikiProject Cricket anymore so not in use. Gonnym ( talk) 17:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:India MPs 2019–present

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 16:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The 2024 Indian general election was declared and is currently going on. The term of the previous MPs definitely ended in 2024. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 10:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Why such a rush? Let's not close this discussion until the 2019 parliament is formally dissolved. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Defer / oppose per Marcocapelle / WP:CRYSTAL. NLeeuw ( talk) 21:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I could have justified my reasoning more. The synopsis of the last day of the Budget session of parliament on February 10, has the following statements:
    • Page 27: "Hon. Prime Minister and Hon. Members, the tenure of this Lok Sabha is drawing to a close today with this session of the Seventeenth Lok Sabha."
    • Page 35: "The National Song was played. (Thereafter, Lok Sabha adjourned sine die)" - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 05:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
      • Really, is India without a functioning parliament for a couple of months? In that case by all means rename. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 16:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Pilot licensing by country

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is borderline c2c, but it could also be that there is no parent category for Pilot licensing. Mason ( talk) 15:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support as a pilot can pilot a ship in the water, such as the two pilots on the boat that crashed into the bridge in Baltimore, or the two pilots on the ship that crashed in the Suez Canal -- 65.92.244.143 ( talk) 22:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Former Laicized Roman Catholic priests

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining, and borderline perfectcat Mason ( talk) 15:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge per nom. NLeeuw ( talk) 06:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Aircraft categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 02:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category with confusing name Mason ( talk) 15:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose. Aircraft category is a technical term, not the same thing as an aircraft type. cagliost ( talk) 15:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per cagliost. The confusion is understandable though; I suggest we add Template:Category see also to both and refer to each other to aid navigation. NLeeuw ( talk) 06:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    See also would help. I've added a second category of Terminology, which would help. I think also adding a category explanation for what this means would be helpful as well. Mason ( talk) 19:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lists of bankruptcies

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There's only two pages in there that are actual lists. The rest is a collection of categories for companies that have declared bankruptcy. This isn't helpful for navigation. Mason ( talk) 15:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose. I have removed one page that shouldn't be in the category. Now we have two pages that should be in this category, and some subcategories. I don't see the problem for navigation. cagliost ( talk) 15:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • The subcategories don't belong here, they do not contain lists. Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lifeboats of the Titanic

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. These two pages are already interlinked. This category really isn't helpful at this stage. Mason ( talk) 15:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Disability and lesbianism

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I encourage the category creator to make a main page about this intersection, because right now this just seems like a narrow collection at this 3xintersection of gender+disability+sexual orientation. Mason ( talk) 14:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: WikiProject LGBT studies and WikiProject Disability have been notified of this discussion. -- MikutoH talk! 23:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lesbians with disabilities

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining interseciton between gender+sexual orientation+disability, per WP:EGRS. (For the record, I am both queer, female, and disabled; and after searching the academic literature, I am extremely skeptical that this intersection is defining for individuals, given what litle i found). Mason ( talk) 14:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/delete, trivial intersections, per WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Question So we're keeping Category:Disability and women and Category:Disability and lesbianism, but considering deleting subcategories for specific women and lesbians with disabilities? Because the phenomena are notable enough, but for individuals it is non-defining? Or at least, lesbians with disabilities do not stand out amongst the larger group of Category:LGBT people with disabilities? I think I might support that reasoning. NLeeuw ( talk) 05:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Pretty much. There's broader literature on the topic for women; so it might be helpful to have gathered together. Disability and women could include gender-based health discrimination etc. Disability and lesbianism could include topics at the intersection, case law, trade magazines, etc, but right now... I don't think there's enough content ( see above). (I'm on the fence). But for specific people, there's not something particularly unique about being a disabled lesbian above and beyond being a disabled LGBTQ person. Mason ( talk) 19:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thanks! Then Merge/delete per nom. NLeeuw ( talk) 10:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep they are defining but separately. Also, why delete Lesbians with disability and keep Category:Transgender people with disabilities?. -- MikutoH talk! 23:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Reply. If you don't think the intersection is defining (a.k.a. only separately), then the category should not be kept per WP:EGRS. (And I didn't nominate the trans category because I wanted to do more reading about the subject before I made nominations.) Mason ( talk) 02:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    An intersection doesn't need to be defining, as NONDEF doesn't explicitly talk about intersections specifically, but both things in the intersection need to be defining. That was my point. -- MikutoH talk! 23:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    But the criteria for EGRS is that the intersection is defining. You'd have a more compelling case if you actually addressed the policy being used. Mason ( talk) 23:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Anyways the category is harmless (or even beyond that, it's a double identity lane). -- MikutoH talk! 00:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

North Yorkshire geography stubs

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

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

  • Delete sensible to delete these as districts no longer used so as to avoid confusing people. 86.187.229.36 ( talk) 16:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment some (all?) of these named areas had a history before the local government districts used their names, so abolishing the local government districts may not, in itself, always make the name redundant. -- Northernhenge ( talk) 18:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Disinformation operations

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#Category:Disinformation operations

Category:Murdered Australian rules footballers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining 3x intersection between cause of death, occupation, and specific sport within that occupation. (Delete instead of merge because Murdered sportspeople only has this category in it, and has the same intersection issue) Mason ( talk) 03:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lists of films by date

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#Category:Lists of films by date

Category:Mountaineering organizations

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

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

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

Category:Works about mountaineering

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge both to Category:Works about climbing and mountaineering. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 13:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: As per the recent CfD on Category:Climbing and mountaineering books, the Category:Works about mountaineering should be merged into Category:Works about climbing, which should then be renamed as Category:Works about climbing and mountaineering. Aszx5000 ( talk) 19:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

Category:Mountaineering films

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

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

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

Category:Invasions by country

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge as nominated and delete the subcategories. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category will never have more than its current 2 subcategories: Category:Invasions by country invaded‎ and Category:Invasions by invading country‎. It exists only by virtue of the ambiguous meaning of the word "country", which is only explained by the two subcategories. It therefore does not aid navigation, and should be upmerged to its parents so that direct navigation to the subcategories is possible. NLeeuw ( talk) 20:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Strongly oppose. "This category will never have more than its current 2 subcategories"? Check again, your argument is invalidated. AHI-3000 ( talk) 21:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
That's just stacking the category with grandchild categories. It really doesn't aid navigation. It remains a redundant layer. NLeeuw ( talk) 23:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Dimadick: What do you think about this? AHI-3000 ( talk) 17:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as nominated and delete all new subcats, merely creating extra container categories doesn't improve navigation between related articles. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Support deleting all new subcats as nom. I don't know if I should tag them as well, but I think we should make clear to the creator that creating new subcats isn't very helpful in the middle of a CFD, and in fact somewhat disruptive. (There is probably a guideline against it, but I can't find it right now). I would ask @ AHI-3000: to please stop creating new subcategories of this category for the duration of this CFD. Thanks in advance. NLeeuw ( talk) 23:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Nederlandse Leeuw: Then cite which specific rule is against doing that. Your initial claim was that this category cannot grow larger than 2 subcats. AHI-3000 ( talk) 01:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Evidently I was mistaken, for one could technically populate the category without actually solving the semantic and navigational issues I highlighted. NLeeuw ( talk) 06:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and delete subcats Per WP:NARROWCAT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 23:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • @ AHI-3000: if you were just trying to make a point it would be the most elegant solution if you would tag the new subcategories as G7. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Marcocapelle: G7? AHI-3000 ( talk) 06:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. I don't see a reason to create multiple subcategories of Category:Invasions with little difference from the parent category. Dimadick ( talk) 17:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Note to participants (not to HouseBlaster, who has understood this correctly): only deleting the newly created subcats that have been created in order to populate the category under nomination. Category:Invasions by country invaded‎ and Category:Invasions by invading country‎ are to be preserved (and have not been tagged). NLeeuw ( talk) 05:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Crystal City, Arlington, Virginia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Crystal City, Virginia. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_26&oldid=1228615187"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 25
May 27 >

May 26

Category:Mythological cycle

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 21:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The Mythological Cycle is a proper noun and should be capitalized. -- YukaSylvie ( talk) 23:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Speedy rename per C2A. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Speedy rename per WP:C2A. – Konanen ( talk) 11:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Urdu-language historical novelists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There's no other language categories for this genre of novelists. The two category members are already in historical novelists for their nationality. Mason ( talk) 23:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge per nom. No other language category for novelists is subdivided by genre. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Urdu-language fiction writers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per the parent Category:Fiction writers Fiction writers is "intended as a parent for more specific subcategories only; writers should not be filed directly in this category. Please reclassify writers found here into more specific categories by their country of origin and/or type of fiction (novelists, short story writers, etc.)" I interpret this to mean that we shouldn't have a category dedicated to fiction writers for a specific language. (And notably the only category of Fiction writers like this) Mason ( talk) 23:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Youth activists

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Child activists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Reverse merge, which should also come with renaming all subcategories from "child" to "youth". QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 08:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment. Reverse merge would conflict though with all of the Fooian children categories. Mason ( talk) 23:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose merging, in either direction - I've slightly reworded for greater clarity the head note for Category:Child activists to read as follows: "This category is for individuals who were notable as activists during childhood, i.e. before the age of 15." Whereas the head note for Category:Youth activists refers to the age range of 15 to 24 years, which conforms with the definition of "youth" that was adopted by the United Nations. Anomalous+0 ( talk) 08:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • @ Anomalous+0: if it is really desirable to make this distinction (which I am not convinced of) it means that every subcategory by nationality needs to be split too. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Paintings of Hebrew Bible themes

Nominator's rationale: merge, a split between Hebrew Bible and Old Testament does not make too much sense in biblical art which largely originates from Christianity. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Reverse merge, Hebrew Bible is the main tree here. NLeeuw ( talk) 18:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep, but Upmerge & redirect Category:Paintings based on the Old Testament to its parents per Fayenatic london. NLeeuw ( talk) 18:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • It is not a "main" tree per se. Old Testament is different (order of bible books), broader (with deuterocanonical books) and more applicable to topics that are more exclusively associated with Christianity. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Whether deuterocanonical books are included depends entirely on denomination. "Hebrew Bible" is the name for the 39 books common to Judaism and Christianity, and I see no reason why Christianity should be regarded as more important.
    On second thought, it might be better to upmerge Category:Paintings based on the Old Testament to its parents, as it is currently a mostly redundant layer. How does that sound? NLeeuw ( talk) 22:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Re "Whether deuterocanonical books are included depends entirely on denomination", as things stand the "deuterocanonical books" category is within the "Old Testament" one, so isn't this an argument against the status quo as well? But it's resolved if Category:Paintings based on the Old Testament is upmerged to its parents, leaving the subdivisions of the (Christian) Bible as "Hebrew Bible", "deuterocanonical books" and "New Testament" – with no "Old Testament"? I hope I've got that right. Ham II ( talk) 16:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Yes, you've got that right! NLeeuw ( talk) 10:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on FL's proposal would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure if I understand FL's proposal. I'll try to read it again carefully. NLeeuw ( talk) 06:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Sacred excrements, I still don't understand lol. I'm gonna need a pc with 2 monitors, or work it out on paper, but I'm on a train and haven't got either. I'll have to return to this question later. NLeeuw ( talk) 06:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The problem is one of semantics: what is meant by "Old Testament" is dependent on religious tradition. As I said above, Whether deuterocanonical books are included depends entirely on denomination. This is best illustrated by Old Testament#Content: the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) (24 books) corresponds exactly with the Protestant Old Testament (39 books; same contents, just split into more books), but the Catholic Old Testament (46 books) adds 7 deuterocanonical books, and the Orthodox Old Testament (49 books) adds 10 deuterocanonical books. Therefore, arguably the "Old Testament" tree (at least when it comes to Biblical art) is a WP:POV-based WP:ARBITRARYCAT, which presumes that Roman Catholicism / Eastern Orthodoxy are theologically "correct", and that Protestantism and Judaism are theologically "wrong". Obviously, this is not a POV Wikipedia can adopt. The simplest and most elegant solution is to phase out the "Old Testament" art tree wherever it is an unhelpful WP:OVERLAPCAT or WP:NARROWCAT, and have an independent "deuterocanonical books" art tree that is a direct child of Category:Biblical art, separate from "Hebrew Bible" art. Template:Hebrew Bible category (widely used in the "Hebrew Bible" tree) already suggests such an approach; although that might itself suggest a "Jewish/Protestant" POV, it is one informed by pragmatism in categorisation.
On closer inspection, it appears Fayenatic and I completely agree, and we are suggesting the same initial steps towards solving the problem. But more is necessary to fix the entire problem. Just phasing out "Old Testament" is not enough. As I suggested, "Hebrew Bible" needs to be Purged of "incestuous" parent/sibling/child categorisation, and "deuterocanonical books" needs a separate, independent tree directly under Category:Biblical art in order to fully disentangle this mess. Good day, and hopefully my commentary is helpful to you all. NLeeuw ( talk) 18:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I'll add some suggestions for a follow-up discussion. Not to be added to this one, but hopefully give better insight which direction we should probably be taking if we'd like to resolve the issues. NLeeuw ( talk) 19:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Suggested solutions for a follow-up discussion
  • Keep and follow the course of action NLeeuw has outlined instead (of removing "Old Testament" categories, etc.). Ham II ( talk) 07:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • @ Nederlandse Leeuw: it is not surprising, and I think not even wrong, that the art category deviates from the rest. Nearly all notable biblical art is art made by Christians, for the larger part made by Catholic people who were used to an Old Testament including the Deuterocanonical books. I certainly agree that this is a POV issue but it seems reasonable to take the artists' POV as leading here. @ Johnbod: what do you think of it? Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for the notification, Marcocapelle, I hadn't seen this! I think to "have an independent "deuterocanonical books" art tree that is a direct child of Category:Biblical art, separate from "Hebrew Bible" art" will confuse people, as the term is these days unfamiliar to most. I think the structure should be:
Biblical
Old Testament
Hebrew Bible
Deuterocanonical books
New Testament
And User:Fayenatic london, can we NOT use "themes" when we mean "subjects" - "love", "death" and "war" are themes, the Sacrifice of Isaac and Tobias and the Angel (my new Deuterocanonical article) are subjects. I don't personally object to cats being "simultaneously siblings and parents" - sometimes you need that. Johnbod ( talk) 01:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Thank you Johnbod – I agree with you in full. Happy to nominate the "themes" categories for renaming as soon as this discussion is closed. As for NLeeuw's and Ham II's suggestions, I don't mind rationalising small categories so long as the contents are not lost from the parents. – Fayenatic London 07:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Many thanks! Agree on the last point too. Johnbod ( talk) 15:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
the term ["deuterocanonical books"] is these days unfamiliar to most. How is that an argument for or against anything? Unless we don't want any category name with "deuterocanonical books" in it at all, it neither supports Johnbod's proposal nor mine. We need a good reason why the deuterocanonical books should or shouldn't be part of an "Old Testament" tree without resulting in a WP:POV-based WP:ARBITRARYCAT. My analysis shows that the "Old Testament" tree is the cause of the confusion here, and the easiest solution is three separate, independent branches for "Hebrew Bible", "deuterocanonical books", and "New Testament" art. Our personal theological beliefs as to whether the deuterocanonical books should canonically be considered part of the "Old Testament" or not are unhelpful here. Template:Hebrew Bible category explains what some people believe and what other people believe, but in the end indicates that we need a pragmatic approach for navigating categories. NLeeuw ( talk) 02:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
"Our personal theological beliefs" are nothing to do with it (& I doubt Fayenatic & I have the same). It seems a good deal more POV to me to exclude the "deuterocanonical books" than to include them. Johnbod ( talk) 04:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Concur with Johnbod. They are part of the Bible or they aren't, but if they are part of the Bible then they are certainly part of the Old Testament too. There is no faith or denomination that distinguishes three canonical "testaments". (Fwiw, I did not grow up with the deuterocanonical books.) Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    As far as scholars are concerned, all three are part of the "Bible". "Old Testament" is just a term that isn't often used by scholars anymore, because it is ambiguous and POV. "Hebrew Bible" is the term most have settled on as a compromise between various Christian definitions (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) of what "Old Testament" means, although it isn't used by Jews (as the "Old / New" terminology suggests they are lagging behind, when in fact they don't recognise the NT as a 'sequel'); the terms "Torah" and "Tenakh" used by Jews, but not by Christians; and all sorts of readers, researchers and scholars who approach these texts from a secular, academic or scientific perspective with a need to not follow any sort of denominational language, but clear and unambiguous terminology. (Incidentally, nobody has a problem with the term "New Testament", and everyone uses that for categorisation and such).
    It may seem odd that we've got this tripartite of Hebrew Bible, deuterocanonical books and New Testament, especially when one is raised with the idea that there are just an Old and a New Testament, and we can/should argue over which deuterocanonicals should be in or out the Old one. But as a historian and a Wikipedian, I have gotten used to reading and writing about them in this way: HB, db, NT. I can link to numerous examples of sources in articles I've written that use the HB/db/NT terminology and have pretty much phased out "Old Testament" already. NLeeuw ( talk) 21:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Well, that's you (and perhaps not happening in English anyway). It's pretty clear that in non-academic use "Old Testament" has plenty of life in it. The deuterocanonical books are not part of the Hebrew Bible (= Tanakh); apart from anything else their [[Biblical_languages#Languages_of_the_deuterocanonical_books|original languages are a complicated question, and not all even have ancient Hebrew texts. The Torah = Pentateuch is only the first 5 OT books. Johnbod ( talk) 03:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    The deuterocanonical books are not part of the Hebrew Bible. Yes, that exactly is why they should be in separate category trees.
    Example text Yes, strictly speaking, though "Torah" is also often used pars pro toto for the entire Tanakh, which is another reason why "Torah" is an unhelpful and ambiguous term, and we should favour "Hebrew Bible" instead.
    I should add that I have primarily been reading and writing about the texts of the Hebrew Bible / deuterocanonical books / New Testament, not studying the artworks based on them. It may be worth doing a quickscan on how modern art historians frame their research. NLeeuw ( talk) 06:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, and the New Testament (2000). This is an example of the HB / DB / NT division in a book title that focuses on textual analysis. We'll have to see whether this is also frequently used for modern biblical art studies.
    NLeeuw ( talk) 06:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Nobody is denying that what you call "HB / DB / NT" are valid and necessary divisions. The question is whether the grouping of the first two as "OT" is useful, in the same way that the NT is sub-divided into gospels, epistles and Acts, & the HB often sub-divided in various ways. This despite agreement across denominations and religions as to the status of these is much more general. Johnbod ( talk) 15:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Well, I think they need to be both valid and useful. And all these terms, HB, DB, Apocrypha, NT, OT etc. have, each to a different degree, some validity and usefulness. From a Christian perspective, OT is quite useful perhaps even theologically necessary in order to explain and justify the existence of the "New" in NT (something which Jews and other non-Christians have no need for). But from the perspective of Wikipedia categorisation, it's more complicated. At any rate, I'm afraid it is going to be difficult to reach agreement on this. I'm quite inspired and motivated now to start reading and writing about visual criticism of biblical art (my quickscan have yielded interesting results from J. Cheryl Exum and Andrea M. M. Sheaffer, Envisioning Judith (2013), and others), but that's gonna take more time than this CfM should run. NLeeuw ( talk) 16:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I should note that Category:Paintings based on the Old Testament and 13 other categories with "Old Testament" in their titles have the boilerplate text " Old Testament refers to the various Christian canons of the Hebrew Bible ... Also included under the categorization of "Old Testament" are the deuterocanonical books of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox canons" – so where OT is used for categorisation, Wikipedia's current way of dealing with these problems is to choose the most expansive definition.
The Visual Commentary on Scripture website, as current an example of "biblical art studies" as one could ask for, has a section on the "Old Testament & Apocrypha" (grouped together). Ham II ( talk) 19:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Hah, well, that sure doesn't make this any less complicated! Here I was thinking that Template:Hebrew Bible category was indicative of which direction categorisation should be taking, but Template:OT category seems to suggest the opposite, and that lots of WP:OVERLAPCAT / WP:NARROWCAT is fine. Now that I mention it, why didn't I think of invoking WP:OVERLAPCAT / WP:NARROWCAT before? "Hebrew Bible" and "deuterocanonical books" will never overlap, but "Old Testament" will always strongly overlap with "Hebrew Bible", and there could always be confusion and disagreement as to whether "deuterocanonical books" (or apocrypha) should be a included under "Old Testament" or not.
Anyway, as interesting as this has been, it seems evident that the proposal will not receive enough support. The only 3 explicit !votes here have all voiced a Keep. The rest of the discussions show no consensus about how to move forward either. If I am to convince the others that "Old Testament" has become a rather obsolete term in scholarly studies on biblical art, I will have to do a lot more reading first.
I should say that reading J. Cheryl Exum's paper Toward a Genuine Dialogue between the Bible and Art (2012) yesterday was an extremely interesting introduction to this field, but nowhere near to answering that question. (The only indication is that the term "Hebrew Bible" appears 3 times in titles cited in the Bibliography against 1 time for "Old Testament", but that is way too small a sample size, and Exum herself uses neither in the main text (only "Bible" and "biblical"), and the terms "deuterocanonical" and "apocrypha" appear nowhere either). NLeeuw ( talk) 16:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
It is certainly true that "Hebrew Bible" will these days usually be used rather than OT when say Genesis is being discussed, especially in American works, but that does does not itself reduce the utility of OT as a term distinguishing from NT. My impression is that "Hebrew Bible" used in this way only became common relatively recently, this century perhaps. Johnbod ( talk) 17:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
In the grand scheme of things, yes, it seems that "Hebrew Bible" has become more common than "Old Testament", certainly amongst textual scholars, in the past 100 years. My first impression is that it seems that scholars of biblical art are following this trend, although somewhat slower. But my first impression may not be representative at all. NLeeuw ( talk) 18:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Ok I just stumbled upon A Comparative Analysis of Depictions of Female Beauty in the Hebrew Bible and the Jewish Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (2015), PhD thesis by Joanna K. Vitale of Oxford University (I'm not sure what her religious views are). "Hebrew Bible" appears 311 times, "Old Testament" 31 times (interestingly, she only uses it once herself; all other instances are in quotations, or in titles in the Bibliography), "deuterocanonical" 3 times (once herself, twice in titles), "apocryph*" 211 times ("New Testament" appears 3 times, all 3 in titles). But 'depictions' are mostly meant in a textual sense here, not in terms of visual arts like paintings, so unfortunately it's not yet very helpful for our purposes here. NLeeuw ( talk) 21:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Two beheadings and a haircut: The (mis) treatment of biblical women in Belle Époque painting (2017) PhD thesis by Katie Louise Sproull of the University of Glasgow, is exactly the right scope for us. Unfortunately, Sproull rarely uses any of our terms: "Hebrew Bible" 5 times (twice in titles), "deuterocanonical" 2 times, "Old Testament" 3 times (twice in titles), "New Testament" 3 times (once in titles), "apocryph*" never. Again the sample size is too small to be reliable. If it were representative, however, it would support my impression that scholars of biblical art are also moving towards "Hebrew Bible" over "Old Testament" (a rate of 5:3; 4:1 in her own words), but at a slower pace than biblical textual scholars (a rate of 10:1, and even then in 30 out of 31 cases in reference to the works of others rather than in her own words). NLeeuw ( talk) 21:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Template:Bhutan-tv-stub

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge Category:Bhutanese television stubs to Category:Asian television stubs and Category:Bhutan stubs. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to parent ( Category:Bhutan stubs) per standard WPSS practice. Grutness... wha? 03:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    • @ Grutness: when you say redirect, do you mean keep the template but have it populate Category:Bhutan stubs? (This also applies to other nominations on this page; I am arbitrarily picking one rather than pinging you a bunch of times.) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 23:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, exactly. That's standard stubbing practice. If the template is there, then it can still be used, it just doesn't need a category. It's the categories which should be nominated for deletion, not the templates. Stub templates are quite often either left unused, emptied, or simply used to fill a parent category. Grutness... wha? 04:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Bhutanese television stubs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I think the merge outcome is more convenient, even though we have zero articles about Bhutanese TV programs. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:India-cricket-season-stub

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge Category:Indian cricket season stubs to Category:Indian sport stubs and Category:cricket season stubs. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 02:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Indian cricket season stubs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Template:2020s-Western-film-stub

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge Category:2020s Western (genre) film stubs to Category:Western (genre) film stubs and Category:2020s film stubs. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:2020s Western (genre) film stubs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Template:1960s-Tamil-film-stub

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge Category:1960s Tamil-language film stubs to Category:Tamil-language film stubs and Category:1960s film stubs. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 02:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to parent ( Category:Tamil-language film stubs) per standard WPSS practice. In many of today's nominations, it looks like there is serious undersorting of stubs rather than an actual lack of need for their use. Grutness... wha? 03:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:1960s Tamil-language film stubs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Template:New Zealand-cricket-ground-stub

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge Category:New Zealand cricket ground stubs to Category:New Zealand sport stubs and Category:Cricket ground stubs. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:New Zealand cricket ground stubs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Religion in China

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: rename, "in" is an odd preproposition in relation to a dynasty, "under" or "during" makes more sense. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
support per nom Mason ( talk) 00:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:1950s-UK-single-stub

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge Category:1950s British single stubs to Category:1950s single stubs and Category:British single stubs. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 02:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to parent ( Category:British single stubs) per standard WPSS practice. In many of today's nominations, it looks like there is serious undersorting of stubs rather than an actual lack of need for their use. Grutness... wha? 03:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:1950s British single stubs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 18:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Template:Uruguay-cemetery-stub

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#Template:Uruguay-cemetery-stub

Template:WashingtonCountyID-geo-stub

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge Category:Washington County, Idaho geography stubs to Category:Idaho geography stubs. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 02:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to parent ( Category:Idaho geography stubs) per standard WPSS practice. Grutness... wha? 03:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Keep; Generically, it would be great to eliminate unused stub classes, but:
    1) it would be the ONLY county without the category
    2) There are some articles that are weak "Starts" that are in there.
    3) There should remain a "place" to put new stubs when needed.
    Mjquinn_id ( talk) 13:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Washington County, Idaho geography stubs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 18:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Template:WestIndies-cricket-season-stub

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge the category to Category:Caribbean stubs and Category:cricket season stubs. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:West Indies cricket season stubs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 18:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Template:Wisconsin-road-stub

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: redirect to Category:Midwestern United States road stubs. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unused stub template. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Wisconsin road stubs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 18:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Category:North American sports venue stubs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. As this nomination was explicitly about the category and not the template, I am going to abstain from relisting this discussion to talk about {{ North-America-cricket-ground-stub}} (which was not tagged). However, I will ping @ Grutness, Her Pegship, LaundryPizza03, and Fayenatic london: in case any of them wish to nominate the template. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 02:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only contents are a stub template that does not populate the category. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Grutness's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 18:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Executed French people

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: manually merge, follow-up after this earlier discussion. Only the second reason of the previous discussion applies now: trivial intersection with location. Manually merge insofar the articles aren't already in one of the other subcategories e.g. Category:French people executed by Nazi Germany. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cricket articles needing attention to tagging

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category not found in code of Template:WikiProject Cricket anymore so not in use. Gonnym ( talk) 17:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:India MPs 2019–present

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 16:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The 2024 Indian general election was declared and is currently going on. The term of the previous MPs definitely ended in 2024. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 10:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Why such a rush? Let's not close this discussion until the 2019 parliament is formally dissolved. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Defer / oppose per Marcocapelle / WP:CRYSTAL. NLeeuw ( talk) 21:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I could have justified my reasoning more. The synopsis of the last day of the Budget session of parliament on February 10, has the following statements:
    • Page 27: "Hon. Prime Minister and Hon. Members, the tenure of this Lok Sabha is drawing to a close today with this session of the Seventeenth Lok Sabha."
    • Page 35: "The National Song was played. (Thereafter, Lok Sabha adjourned sine die)" - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 05:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
      • Really, is India without a functioning parliament for a couple of months? In that case by all means rename. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 16:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Category:Pilot licensing by country

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is borderline c2c, but it could also be that there is no parent category for Pilot licensing. Mason ( talk) 15:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support as a pilot can pilot a ship in the water, such as the two pilots on the boat that crashed into the bridge in Baltimore, or the two pilots on the ship that crashed in the Suez Canal -- 65.92.244.143 ( talk) 22:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Former Laicized Roman Catholic priests

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining, and borderline perfectcat Mason ( talk) 15:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge per nom. NLeeuw ( talk) 06:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Aircraft categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 02:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category with confusing name Mason ( talk) 15:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose. Aircraft category is a technical term, not the same thing as an aircraft type. cagliost ( talk) 15:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per cagliost. The confusion is understandable though; I suggest we add Template:Category see also to both and refer to each other to aid navigation. NLeeuw ( talk) 06:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    See also would help. I've added a second category of Terminology, which would help. I think also adding a category explanation for what this means would be helpful as well. Mason ( talk) 19:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lists of bankruptcies

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There's only two pages in there that are actual lists. The rest is a collection of categories for companies that have declared bankruptcy. This isn't helpful for navigation. Mason ( talk) 15:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose. I have removed one page that shouldn't be in the category. Now we have two pages that should be in this category, and some subcategories. I don't see the problem for navigation. cagliost ( talk) 15:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • The subcategories don't belong here, they do not contain lists. Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lifeboats of the Titanic

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. These two pages are already interlinked. This category really isn't helpful at this stage. Mason ( talk) 15:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Disability and lesbianism

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I encourage the category creator to make a main page about this intersection, because right now this just seems like a narrow collection at this 3xintersection of gender+disability+sexual orientation. Mason ( talk) 14:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: WikiProject LGBT studies and WikiProject Disability have been notified of this discussion. -- MikutoH talk! 23:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lesbians with disabilities

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining interseciton between gender+sexual orientation+disability, per WP:EGRS. (For the record, I am both queer, female, and disabled; and after searching the academic literature, I am extremely skeptical that this intersection is defining for individuals, given what litle i found). Mason ( talk) 14:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/delete, trivial intersections, per WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Question So we're keeping Category:Disability and women and Category:Disability and lesbianism, but considering deleting subcategories for specific women and lesbians with disabilities? Because the phenomena are notable enough, but for individuals it is non-defining? Or at least, lesbians with disabilities do not stand out amongst the larger group of Category:LGBT people with disabilities? I think I might support that reasoning. NLeeuw ( talk) 05:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Pretty much. There's broader literature on the topic for women; so it might be helpful to have gathered together. Disability and women could include gender-based health discrimination etc. Disability and lesbianism could include topics at the intersection, case law, trade magazines, etc, but right now... I don't think there's enough content ( see above). (I'm on the fence). But for specific people, there's not something particularly unique about being a disabled lesbian above and beyond being a disabled LGBTQ person. Mason ( talk) 19:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thanks! Then Merge/delete per nom. NLeeuw ( talk) 10:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep they are defining but separately. Also, why delete Lesbians with disability and keep Category:Transgender people with disabilities?. -- MikutoH talk! 23:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Reply. If you don't think the intersection is defining (a.k.a. only separately), then the category should not be kept per WP:EGRS. (And I didn't nominate the trans category because I wanted to do more reading about the subject before I made nominations.) Mason ( talk) 02:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    An intersection doesn't need to be defining, as NONDEF doesn't explicitly talk about intersections specifically, but both things in the intersection need to be defining. That was my point. -- MikutoH talk! 23:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    But the criteria for EGRS is that the intersection is defining. You'd have a more compelling case if you actually addressed the policy being used. Mason ( talk) 23:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Anyways the category is harmless (or even beyond that, it's a double identity lane). -- MikutoH talk! 00:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

North Yorkshire geography stubs

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

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

  • Delete sensible to delete these as districts no longer used so as to avoid confusing people. 86.187.229.36 ( talk) 16:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment some (all?) of these named areas had a history before the local government districts used their names, so abolishing the local government districts may not, in itself, always make the name redundant. -- Northernhenge ( talk) 18:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Disinformation operations

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#Category:Disinformation operations

Category:Murdered Australian rules footballers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining 3x intersection between cause of death, occupation, and specific sport within that occupation. (Delete instead of merge because Murdered sportspeople only has this category in it, and has the same intersection issue) Mason ( talk) 03:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lists of films by date

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#Category:Lists of films by date

Category:Mountaineering organizations

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

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

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

Category:Works about mountaineering

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge both to Category:Works about climbing and mountaineering. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 13:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: As per the recent CfD on Category:Climbing and mountaineering books, the Category:Works about mountaineering should be merged into Category:Works about climbing, which should then be renamed as Category:Works about climbing and mountaineering. Aszx5000 ( talk) 19:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

Category:Mountaineering films

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

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

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

Category:Invasions by country

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge as nominated and delete the subcategories. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category will never have more than its current 2 subcategories: Category:Invasions by country invaded‎ and Category:Invasions by invading country‎. It exists only by virtue of the ambiguous meaning of the word "country", which is only explained by the two subcategories. It therefore does not aid navigation, and should be upmerged to its parents so that direct navigation to the subcategories is possible. NLeeuw ( talk) 20:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Strongly oppose. "This category will never have more than its current 2 subcategories"? Check again, your argument is invalidated. AHI-3000 ( talk) 21:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
That's just stacking the category with grandchild categories. It really doesn't aid navigation. It remains a redundant layer. NLeeuw ( talk) 23:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Dimadick: What do you think about this? AHI-3000 ( talk) 17:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as nominated and delete all new subcats, merely creating extra container categories doesn't improve navigation between related articles. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Support deleting all new subcats as nom. I don't know if I should tag them as well, but I think we should make clear to the creator that creating new subcats isn't very helpful in the middle of a CFD, and in fact somewhat disruptive. (There is probably a guideline against it, but I can't find it right now). I would ask @ AHI-3000: to please stop creating new subcategories of this category for the duration of this CFD. Thanks in advance. NLeeuw ( talk) 23:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Nederlandse Leeuw: Then cite which specific rule is against doing that. Your initial claim was that this category cannot grow larger than 2 subcats. AHI-3000 ( talk) 01:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Evidently I was mistaken, for one could technically populate the category without actually solving the semantic and navigational issues I highlighted. NLeeuw ( talk) 06:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and delete subcats Per WP:NARROWCAT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 23:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • @ AHI-3000: if you were just trying to make a point it would be the most elegant solution if you would tag the new subcategories as G7. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Marcocapelle: G7? AHI-3000 ( talk) 06:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. I don't see a reason to create multiple subcategories of Category:Invasions with little difference from the parent category. Dimadick ( talk) 17:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Note to participants (not to HouseBlaster, who has understood this correctly): only deleting the newly created subcats that have been created in order to populate the category under nomination. Category:Invasions by country invaded‎ and Category:Invasions by invading country‎ are to be preserved (and have not been tagged). NLeeuw ( talk) 05:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Crystal City, Arlington, Virginia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Crystal City, Virginia. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_26&oldid=1228615187"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE