Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Speedy renaming and merging

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

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

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

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

(The four ~ will sign and datestamp the entry automatically.)
If the current name should be redirected rather than deleted, use: 

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

To note that human action is required, e.g. updating a template that populates the category, use: 

* NO BOTS [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

Remember to tag the category page with: {{ subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 07:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 282 open requests ( refresh).

Current requests

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

- RevelationDirect ( talk) 22:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Opposed requests

On hold pending other discussion

  • None currently

Moved to full discussion

PLEASE NOTE: I have moved all of the following Categories here pending adequate confirmation of their eligibility under C2C. I made a serious effort to look for that, but was unable to find such confirmation. There is a massive jumbled welter of Categories in this realm, with no prevailing pattern that I can discern. Anomalous+0 ( talk) 07:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

++

  • Oppose for now to all by ethnic or national origin nominations. 46.229.243.187 ( talk) 08:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Your opposition needs to have a reason. Mason ( talk) 13:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The existing wording sounds more natural and is easier to understand. 46.229.243.187 ( talk) 14:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Current discussions

Shortcut

April 20

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Will Haven

Nominator's rationale: This eponymous category used to have a couple articles for its band members which have been redirected. With only an albums subcategory now, this parent is no longer necessary. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 03:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply



April 19

Category:Sikh military

Nominator's rationale: Renaming (A) may be a good idea because of parents Category:Sikh Empire and Category:Military by former country, and siblings in Category:Military by former country. However, as @ Marcocapelle pointed out at Speedy, this requires more discussion because there is lots of content in the category that pre-dates the Sikh Empire. Moreover, Dharamyudh (Sikhism) (an article I wrote some years ago) is a religious concept, and does not belong solely to the Sikh Empire as a state. Alternately, we could also decide that this is just an WP:ARBITRARYCAT that should be deleted (B). Also, I think that the two recently created children Category:Military units and formations of the Sikhs and Category:Wars involving the Sikhs may be WP:ARBITRARYCATs, which will also have to be renamed (A) or deleted (B). Category:Sikh warriors may be a valid category (if it passes WP:EGRS), but not all those within the military of the Sikh Empire were necessarily adherents of Sikhism, so unless renamed & rescoped, that subcategory should be removed from this tree. Please indicate your preference, as both seem workable solutions to the current issues. NLeeuw ( talk) 14:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. This is a difficult one, because the Sikhs dominated (parts of) Punjab, but did not have a consistent political structure in that region during the two centuries that this category tree is about. They did have military though, to defend their territories. The period covers the Early Mughal–Sikh wars until the Afghan–Sikh wars and it is only during the latter wars that there was first a Sikh Confederacy and later a Sikh Empire. Deletion or purging would certainly be counter-productive because it would arbitrarily break the military history of the region. At most diffuse by different periods. An alternative in a completely different direction is renaming to Category:Sikh military (1621–1849). Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    I really don't think we should be categorising military history by religious denomination. That's kinda like creating Category:Anabaptist military and then throwing Münster rebellion and Anabaptist riot in there, as if those were carried out by the Armed Forces of the same "state". They weren't.
    We could split up by state, e.g. Category:Wars involving the Sikh Confederacy and Category:Wars involving the Sikh Empire. I would definitely support that. I could add that as Option C to the nom. NLeeuw ( talk) 20:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • The comparison with Anabaptists is unfair because the two articles you mentioned are situated at two different places and the Anabaptists held power in only one of them. Hypothetically, if they would have maintained longer in Münster, and if there they would have been called "the Anabaptists" by historians as belligerant in wars, then by all means Category:Anabaptist military would have been a valid category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:People's peers

Nominator's rationale: The term " people's peers" is chiefly informal, while the new title is unambiguous as to its scope and resembles other similar category names, e.g. "Peers appointed by [monarch]". —  RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Biota of Tierra del Fuego

Nominator's rationale: Just delete for now without prejudice. It's a redundant layer and its only child is already in all the trees of this cat's parents. NLeeuw ( talk) 13:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Southern Cone countries

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. There is no universal definition of Southern Cone; Paraguay is sometimes included, sometimes excluded, and only some Federative units of Brazil are sometimes included, sometimes excluded, but never is Brazil as a whole included. Even if we take the strict definition of just Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, that's only three countries, and this category has no other navigational value. Its parent Category:Countries in South America by region only has this child, so that was a redundant layer anyway, and should be deleted as well. NLeeuw ( talk) 13:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, there are only 12 countries in South America so that does not require diffusion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Southern cone music

Nominator's rationale: Main article was deleted as WP:OR: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern cone music. The remainder may be upmerged to Category:Music of South America. NLeeuw ( talk) 13:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Haitian people of Mulatto descent

Nominator's rationale: rename per article Mulatto Haitians. It probably is a case of WP:C2D speedy renaming, but maybe there are objections. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Maratha Empire

Nominator's rationale: delete, isolated year categories. No need to merge, the articles are still in Category:1782 in India and Category:1792 in India, and already in Category:Treaties of the Maratha Empire. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Jewish history by region

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:20th-century Andorran people by occupation

Nominator's rationale: There's no need to have a by occupation category when there's only one occupation Mason ( talk) 00:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply


April 18

Category:Chicago television shows

Nominator's rationale: Current name is way too close to Category:Television shows set in Chicago and much too vague given its actual, very specific meaning, and needs to be changed. This suggestion is based on Category:Local television programming in the United States, and it's probably the best I can come up with, though alternate suggestions are very welcome. Similar issue exists for all of Television in Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and the San Francisco Bay Area, so this nomination could be expanded. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 21:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Support. I think I created this, it's hard to tell after a few name changes. The intent was to list shows made by local channels. The existing categories and subcategory support this. Fuddle ( talk) 01:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Flip-flop: I like this idea better. It's longer, but more precise. Fuddle ( talk) 21:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm not opposed to this, even if it's a bit of a mouthful. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 23:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Habitats Directive Species

Nominator's rationale: While "HD" is a proper noun, "HDS" is not. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not a defining characterstic. If kept, rename per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of ♡ | speak 19:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment @ Marcocapelle: "Species described in year" and "IUCN vulnerable species" categories are not defining characteristics, either, but those are widely used. How are those acceptable but this isn't? For the record, I oppose deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Shabbat observant businesses

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) Queen of ♡ | speak 21:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I think "Shabbat observant" is a compound adjective that should have a hyphen. 123.51.107.94 ( talk) 00:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of ♡ | speak 19:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per Marco Mason ( talk) 13:41, 19 April 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:Religious extremism

Nominator's rationale: rename per main article Religious fanaticism. This could perhaps be speedied, but let's see if there are objections after all. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Music of Extremadura

Nominator's rationale: 1 P, 0 C. Already in other parent. Upmerge for now without prejudice. NLeeuw ( talk) 16:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Bulgarian encyclopedias

Nominator's rationale: It is not useful to lump together works from or about Bulgaria with works in the Bulgarian language that could be about different topics. Some entries might remain in the original category if they are about encyclopedias from Bulgaria. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 12:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment That an encyclopedia was published in Bulgaria does not mean that the topic is Bulgaria. Encyclopedias tend to cover a wide variety of topics. Dimadick ( talk) 14:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • In practice it is very unlikely that an encyclopedia published in Bulgaria wouldn't be Bulgarian-language encyclopedia, so they would fall in the second split target. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    That's not what Dimadick said; he pointed out that country of publication and topic do not need to match, rather than that country of publication and language do not need to match.
    Incidentally, specialised English-language encyclopedias are published all over the world all the time. Within a few seconds I just found the Encyclopedia of Coastal Science (2005), published in Dordrecht, the Netherlands. Last I checked, English still isn't the dominant native language over here, but that doesn't stop anyone from publishing encyclopaedias in English on "Dutch" soil. ;) NLeeuw ( talk) 00:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Dutch encyclopedias

  • Option 1
  • Option 2
  • (both options):
Nominator's rationale for Option 1: Per the actual scope of the main article, List of Dutch encyclopedias, which I have just renamed List of encyclopedias in Dutch, because the scope as indicated by the definition in the opening sentence is 'Encyclopedias in the Dutch language', and includes several encyclopedias published in Belgium rather than the Netherlands. The connected Commonscat was already named c:Category:Encyclopedias in Dutch. The interwiki to frwiki was already fr:Liste d'encyclopédies en néerlandais, a redirect to fr:Liste d'encyclopédies par langue#Néerlandais, and to nlwiki already to nl:Encyclopedie#Nederlandstalige encyclopedieën. This also means we should Purge parents Category:Encyclopedias by country and Category:European encyclopedias, because the Dutch language is not necessarily limited by geography to Europe either (e.g. there is an nl:Encyclopedie van Suriname, published in 1977 in Suriname, two years after it became indepedent). Because I recently renamed the main article myself, speedy criterion C2D does not count, but as you can see, it has always been the main article's and category's scope. NLeeuw ( talk) 12:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Update 6 April 2024 and rationale for Option 2: Belarusian, Albanian, Bengali and Tamil language encyclopedias have been added to the nomination following their speedy renaming nomination by LaundryPizza03, and Marcocapelle's suggestion to go full, and my suggestion to centralise discussion over here. The rationale for Option 2 is that it conforms with most older naming conventions to name things Fooian-language things. By contrast, emerging new conventions (Option 1) favour Things in Fooian. We all agree the current categories should be renamed, but the question is which Option is preferable. For both options, it is proposed to Purge them out of the by country and by continent trees, because these encyclopedias are by language. NLeeuw ( talk) 16:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support, language is generally much more a defining characteristic of a book than the country where it is published. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    I agree. Country of publication could be defining, and it's okay that we've got a Category:Encyclopedias by country tree. But if we need to choose, I think language takes priority over country of publication. We could do both, but then we risk situations like Category:Latvian encyclopedias and Category:Latvian-language encyclopedias, which are technically distinct, but both contain the two same items in practice. Only for larger languages and countries like France versus the French language, it is evident to have separate category trees, especially if the latter has a subcategory like "Belgian encyclopedias in French" or something, showing that France and French don't always coincidence. NLeeuw ( talk) 12:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Courtesy ping @ Marcocapelle:, you might want to clarify or change your !vote based on the amended nomination and rationale. Thanks. NLeeuw ( talk) 16:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • I do not have a strong preference between option 1 and 2, both are an improvement versus current. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 12:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Support option 2. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 20:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Support option 2. Matches with Category:Mass media by language tree. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 23:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Estonian numismatists

Nominator's rationale: 1-member. Little potential to grow Estopedist1 ( talk) 11:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge for now without prejudice per nom. NLeeuw ( talk) 11:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Upmerge for now per nom. I've added the rest of the single person categories. @ Nederlandse Leeuw and Estopedist1: Mason ( talk) 12:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Smasongarrison I'm not sure if Estopedist would appreciate it that you changed their nomination. It makes sense, but I think it's better to ask the nominator to include other categories to their nomination than to do it yourself without their prior consent.
    If Estopedist agrees, however, I also favour upmerging the additional categories for now without prejudice. NLeeuw ( talk) 12:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Estopedist1 @ Smasongarrison @ Nederlandse Leeuw thanks very much for the work here, I was looking at these last night but then had to go to sleep! I've done a little more tidying:
    • Category:Czechoslovak numismatists is empty (with one moved to Czech
    • Category:New Zealand numsimatists is empty (the one classed as numismatist is really a coin designer, so moved to that category)
    • Category:Belarusian numismatists - I can't seem to locate the proposal for it?
    There are some more things I had in mind that I will try to get to, today Lajmmoore ( talk) 14:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment As stated, Category:New Zealand numismatists is empty. Liz Read! Talk! 16:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge for now, without objection to recreate any of these categories when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  •  Comment: by nominator. Excellent job, mates! Thanks for modifying my original nomination!-- Estopedist1 ( talk) 19:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Glad to know you didn't mind. Personally I usually don't appreciate it when other people change my nomination without asking, but not everyone is the same way. NLeeuw ( talk) 00:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  •  Comment: - Categories: Belarusian, Estonian, Lithuanian and Pakistani numismatist are no longer single person categories. Lajmmoore ( talk) 21:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • They have only two or three articles so they can still be merged. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    I think for the discipline it's useful for catgeories that reflect more than one article to be separate, and I believe the nominations were made prior to the addition of more people to the categories Lajmmoore ( talk) 09:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    These categories also show users which articles still need to be created in the English Wikipedia based on the categories in other language Wikipedias. For example, I was surprised by how many articles we are still missing for Estonian numistamists in enwp. Obliterating the categories won't help people with that.
    On a side note, I was also surprised by how few of the people in the same category in other language wps had properly filled out items in Wikidata that could be used to query numistamists from these places, even when they are in the properly titled categories in other wps. To me, this looks like a very good reason to get people together to expand and create articles on these people in enwp, filling out the categories, instead of deleting the categories. - Yupik ( talk) 07:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - Albanian, Algerian, Azerbaijani, Czechoslovak, Jordanian, Latvian, New Zealand Serbian, Slovak, Sri Lankan, but ...
  • Leave - Belarusian, Estonian, Lithuanian Lajmmoore ( talk) 11:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Leave... what? Leave out? Leave in? NLeeuw ( talk) 16:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment If you merge the Jordanian, Slovak, Czechoslovak, Belarusian, Algerian, and Albanian numismatists, you also need to put them into categories for their nationalities, like Category:Jordanian people or a subcategory. It would be wrong to take these people out of their nationality categories entirely. 123.51.107.94 ( talk) 23:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:18th-century American slave owners

Nominator's rationale: Do we really need to diffuse by century of ownership? I don't think that the category is helpful. I think diffusion by state would be more helpful. Mason ( talk) 03:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • It looks like the categories have been depopulated. Marcocapelle ( talk) 03:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    FWIW: @ MarcocapelleWhen I nominated the categories, there were zero pages in them, just the slave-trader categories. Mason ( talk) 22:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to Category:American slave owners. Redundant layers. NLeeuw ( talk) 05:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Opose Whyever delete it? It is always usefull to sort people by century, and the category American slave owners is too big, and need sub categories. Nothing prevents having both a category by state and a category by century; other categories of people do. Slaves have century categories, and nothing prevents having century categories for slave owners as well. They are always helpful when a reader need to find people by century, and do not prevent the creation of other categories, such as state categories.-- Aciram ( talk) 12:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    As the category creator,Aciram, are you planning on populating them? Mason ( talk) 22:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    If it's just 2 centuries, I strongly recommend against subdividing by centuries. There will be a lot of duplication without navigational advantage. Splitting by state seems doable and defining, however. NLeeuw ( talk) 20:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    I'm adding the newly-created parent categories, that are also not populated with pages, in a moment. @ Aciram@ Marcocapelle@ Nederlandse Leeuw Mason ( talk) 19:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    I don't think it's very helpful to start creating new empty categories with little navigational value in the middle of a CfD. That said, I'll emphasise that I favour upmerging for now without prejudice. If a newly created category can be properly filled with items and has demonstrable navigational value, there's nothing wrong with it. NLeeuw ( talk) 22:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as nominated. It is not helpful to sort by century.-- User:Namiba 00:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Diffusion by century is always useful in large categories. Dimadick ( talk) 14:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Not always. For example, we very intentionally don't have activists diffused by century or athletes by sport. Dimadick, are you planning on doing the diffusion? Because right now these categories are *very empty*. Mason ( talk) 13:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 20:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete/upmerge: Diffusing by country/state makes a lot more sense and would save from the overlap issue that NLeeuw mentioned. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 23:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms by Muslims

Nominator's rationale: This category feels WP:COATRACKy. There is no Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms by Christians, even though those are far more prevalent. Moreover, many of the incidents here were not even defined by the participation of Muslims so inclusion into the Islam and anti-Semitism article would not always be appropriate. User:Namiba 18:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I originally created that category, feeling that pogroms by Muslims were notable precisely because they were much less common than pogroms by (especially Russian or other Eastern European) Christians. -- GCarty ( talk) 07:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Understandable. But the effect might be that unnecessary emphasis is placed on Muslims as perpetrators in a way that is currently not done for Christians (or others) as perpetrators. NLeeuw ( talk) 01:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Perhaps rename to Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Middle East and North Africa, or something similar?
  • Meanwhile GCarty proposed another alternative which (if slightly modified) I would not oppose either. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. If not, delete. "By Muslims" is simply unacceptable in a category name. Even when the majority of the perpetrators were Muslims, the name implies that their religion was a key factor in the process (rather than politics, economics, etc.). Usually this is either false or unknown. Would we name a cat about things done by Israel with "by Jews"? Zero talk 04:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    As mentioned above, I now think the this category (which I created originally) should be replaced with Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Middle East and/or Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms in North Africa. -- GCarty ( talk) 19:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
As the nominator, I suggest we merge with no objection to splitting off articles by continent for consistency's sake.-- User:Namiba 20:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge per nom and per discussion above. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 20:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim field personnel

Nominator's rationale: Merge categories per previous discussion here. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 12:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Pinging @ Eureka Lott and @ Natg 19 from the previous discussion on the matter. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 12:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:The Book of Boba Fett episodes

Nominator's rationale: All episodes were redirected so no content here. The child category will automatically be placed in the parent category if this is deleted. Gonnym ( talk) 12:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Swedish emigrants to Japan

Nominator's rationale: Dual speedy upmerge for now. These categories were deleted due to only having one person it in (and is still the case), which wasn't helpful for navigation. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_11#More_emigrants Mason ( talk) 11:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Tourism in Brazil by city

Nominator's rationale: These only contain subcats for tourist attractions, which are already categorised in Category:Tourist attractions in Brazil by city. – Fayenatic London 11:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom (or delete, as I am not sure if tourist attractions really belong in economy). Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

History of Ipê

Nominator's rationale: Only contains 1 article on a museum. – Fayenatic London 11:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Talian dialect

Nominator's rationale: These categories only contain one article, That article is about Talian dialect, which I don't think we would generally categorise as geography anyway. – Fayenatic London 10:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Tourism in Rio Grande do Sul

Nominator's rationale: Merge for now, only one or two pages in these sub-categories, and mostly it's the same regional article. – Fayenatic London 09:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply


April 17

Category:Legacy of Austria-Hungary

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure how this category is defining. These just seem to be long-lasting historical events Mason ( talk) 19:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Well, the average reader would associate the term "History of Austria-Hungary" with events that happened during Austria-Hungary. "Legacy of Austria-Hungary" would be things that are not just placed coterminously, but exist after it, and many of them to this day. As for being defining, they're all pretty clearly associated with Austria-Hungary in the article and in their sources, did you notice any particular ommissions to this? -- Joy ( talk) 19:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, it is a hogdepodge of articles that have very little in common with each other. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Marcocapelle yes, the thing they have in common with each other is that they're legacy of Austria-Hungary. Similar to many other categorizations. Why do you think this could not be useful to the average English reader researching this historical topic? -- Joy ( talk) 14:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom and WP:ARBITRARYCAT. What is and is not "legacy" is often arbitrary, and claims of legacy often fall in the realm of pseudohistory. Categories are not the best place to assess the validity of those claims. The Death and funeral of Otto von Habsburg is a great example: you can always claim it is the "legacy" of something; not just Austria-Hungary, but the entire Holy Roman Empire, and by extension the Roman Empire, and by extension Ancient Greece, and so on. (Sounds very WP:ASSOCIATEDWITHy to me). Categories would be a mess if we went that way. Strictly speaking, it happened in 2011, is therefore not part the History, which ended in 1918, so it should be Purged. NLeeuw ( talk) 15:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Arctic music

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Mostly irrelevant intersection of geography and music by country/ethnicity category trees. The overwhelming majority of the population in each of these countries lives outside the Arctic (that is, below the Arctic Circle of 66° 34' N. Iceland entirely lies below the Article Circle, except for the northernmost tip of the islet of Grímsey, which due to plate tectonics will also be completely south of the Circle within a few years. All inhabitants of Iceland live below it. Classifying all Category:Icelandic music as "Arctic music", because a stonethrow of diminishing beach is above an arbitrary circle, is ridiculous. Similar arguments can be made for all the rest of this category. No musician in Toronto is thinking: 'Oh, my music is sooo Arctic!' Anyway, you get the idea. NLeeuw ( talk) 18:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
 Comment: For the last part, is it like an equivalent of the “Do you live in igloos?” question? I do know there are Arctic tribes that had their own music and the Inuit are a good example of this. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd ( talk) 18:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Sure, but Inuit people can and do live south of the Arctic Circle as well, and that doesn't seem to affect their music in any way. People are mobile, they can live and migrate all around the world. Even within Nunavut and Greenland, where most Inuit live (see Inuit#Demographics), the majority of them live below the Arctic Circle of 66° 34' N, see List of communities in Nunavut. Last I checked, there is no Category:Temperate zone music either. That line on the map has no significance for music whatsoever. NLeeuw ( talk) 19:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Songs from animated series

Nominator's rationale: Per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 1#Category:Songs from television series, rename and purge. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 17:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Disney animation songs

Nominator's rationale: Only contains one redirect ( Der Fuehrer's Face (song)). Upmerge for now; unhelpful for navigation. I have purposefully left out the other two parent categories as merge targets: Der Fuehrer's Face (a cartoon that I would highly recommend you watch!) is not really a series (and thus the song does not belong in Category:Songs from animated series) and the song itself has no animation. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 17:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge for now without prejudice. Unhelpful at this time. Not sure it will never be helpful in the future, as the majority of Disney films are animated, and how a song is visualised may not be WP:DEFINING, but who knows. NLeeuw ( talk) 14:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Maharajas of Punjab, India

Nominator's rationale: rename and remove header: anachronistic category name, since Punjab, India did not exist yet. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:French people in New Caledonia

Nominator's rationale: New Caledonia is part of France, so I'm not convinced of the usefulness of this category (which contains only two pages). It does not seem helpful to navigation and is listed as part of the French expatriates category tree which seems inaccurate. AusLondonder ( talk) 13:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. The term "expatriate" does not apply when residing within the borders of the country of one's nationality. NLeeuw ( talk) 15:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Inbred animals

Nominator's rationale: Description is erroneous and most dog breeds are arguably inbred, this is a very subjective/specific list that ultimately has more to do with the perception of whoever added the category. Traumnovelle ( talk) 07:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Sydney New Year's Eve

Nominator's rationale: This category seems to be WP:NONDEFINING as it appears to just be a collection of locations in Sydney where fireworks are set off on New Year's Day. BaduFerreira ( talk) 01:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Crackers (food)

Nominator's rationale: Should Category:Crackers (food) be disambiguated if nothing exists at Category:Crackers? Not sure, so I'm nominating this for discussion. BaduFerreira ( talk) 00:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Democratic Labor Party (historical) members of the Parliament of Victoria

Nominator's rationale: There's multiple Democratic Labor Parties that can be considered historical. Although the disambiguation-less version is available and not occupied by any other categories, it seems appropriate to still include the Australian 1955? As to differentiate it from other Democratic Labor Parties in some fashion. Utopes ( talk / cont) 00:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Democratic Labor Party (historical) politicians

Nominator's rationale: The associated page with this category was recently moved, as there are multiple Democratic Labor Parties that can be described as "historical". This category and associated titles should be moved to a more fitting name, but I'm not sure whether there's a more preferable / succinct way of renaming to focus on this being the Australian, 1955 Democratic Labor Party. Utopes ( talk / cont) 00:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply


April 16

Category:Christian anti-Zionism

Nominator's rationale: delete, not as a matter of principle, but there are only two articles in it, one for which anti-Zionism is a POV judgment and the other is anti- Christian Zionism which is quite something different than Jewish Zionism. E.g. Christian Zionism asserts a parallel idea that the returnees ought to be encouraged to reject Judaism and adopt Christianity as a means of fulfilling biblical prophecies. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose. As long as Category:Christian Zionism exists, I don't see any reason to get rid of this category. AHI-3000 ( talk) 21:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • The reason for that is the existence of Christian Zionism as a separate movement with quite a different agenda than Zionism. They are not Zionists who happen to be Christians but rather adherents of Christian_Zionism. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:31, 4 April 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) 12:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Support per nom. Mason ( talk) 23:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of ♡ | speak 23:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Anti-Zionist Christians

Nominator's rationale: delete, the category contains people with widely diverging views, from antisemitism to advocy of Palestinian human rights, but generally it has very little to do with Christian theology. If applicable, articles are better off in Category:American Zionists etc. than in a specific Christian category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Support per nom. Mason ( talk) 21:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose. As long as Category:Christian Zionists exists, I don't see any reason to get rid of this category. AHI-3000 ( talk) 21:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • The reason for that is the existence of Christian Zionism as a separate movement with quite a different agenda than Zionism. They are not Zionists who happen to be Christians but rather adherents of Christian_Zionism. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:30, 4 April 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) 12:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of ♡ | speak 23:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Anti-mainlander sentiment in Hong Kong

Nominator's rationale: "Anti-mainlander sentiment" is not a defining characteristic of the articles that have been placed in this category, which are about subjects that may be more accurately or commonly described as reflecting a "pro-democracy", "localist", or "anti-Chinese Communist Party" sentiment. The category name is also biased in favour of a narrative promoted by the Chinese government – the Hong Kong pro-democracy movement was portrayed as "anti-mainlander" to help cement Chinese public opinion against Hong Kong democracy activists. Citobun ( talk) 23:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge to Category:Hong Kong democracy movements, the two categories seem to overlap. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Move the title to Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment in Hong Kong. There is a difference between the pro-democracy movement and the anti-mainlander sentiment. Among the latter, some simply antagonize the CCP, but others antagonize the mainlander's people. However, many Hong Kongers see it as better to change the title than delete it, as they distinguish their identity from the [mainland] Chinese people. ProKMT ( talk) 08:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the category article itself is a completely different matter. I am well aware of the oppression of CCP in Hong Kong, but at the same time, I am also aware of discrimination against the mainlander 'people'. Even before I edited it, many articles related to Hong Kong topics included Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment in Asia. ProKMT ( talk) 07:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • None of the articles fits well with the category title. As said, they are much more about the Hong Kong democracy movements. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Deaths due to hippopotamus attacks

Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic of the sole member. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete per nomination. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 00:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Orange Twin albums

Nominator's rationale: Orange Twin is a redirect to Orange Twin Records. These categories refer to the same record label. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 20:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Citizens of Indonesia through descent

Nominator's rationale: Per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Category:Citizens of Hungary through descent and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 17#Category:Citizens through descent, purge and merge to Category:People with acquired Indonesian citizenship. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:History of Austria-Hungary by topic

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

Nominator's rationale The category should be renamed to match the main article, List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 03:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • For sure "Native American tribes" is clearer than "tribes in the United States". However "unrecognized" is clearer than "self-identify" because tribes that are recognized also self-identify as such but that is obviously not in scope here. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Marcocapelle They aren't tribes though. They are organizations. To incorrectly call them "tribes" implies that they are indeed tribes but are merely waiting to be recognized. That's a POV. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 11:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Opposed -
    Dear Wikipedia Editors,
    I am writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed amendment that seeks to rename the category “Unrecognized tribes in the United States” to “Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes.” This change not only misrepresents our tribe but also undermines the historical and cultural recognition we have long held.
    The Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe of Wampanoag Nation has a well-documented history in Plymouth, Bourne, Massachusetts dating back thousands of years. We still have care and custody of our sacred places, burial grounds and our 1838 Meetinghouse, one of 3 built for the Tribe after the arrival of the colonizers. Our continuous presence and stewardship of these lands are recognized by historical records,deeds and treaties and so on. Additionally, our status is acknowledged by the two MA federal tribes, the Commission on Indian Affairs, Plymouth, Bourne and the Commonwealth which affirms our legitimacy beyond mere self-identification.
    The proposed renaming of the category on Wikipedia is not only inaccurate of many but also insulting. It disregards the deep cultural and ancestral ties we have to our land—ties that are integral to our identity and existence. Labeling us as an organization that self-identifies as a Native American tribe fails to recognize these ties and the acknowledgment we have received from authoritative entities.
    Mislabeling our tribe and any other legitimate Tribes in this manner can lead to the spread of hate, misinformation and further marginalization. It is crucial that platforms like Wikipedia, which serve as a global source of information, ensure the accuracy and integrity of the content they host.
    Tribes without legislative recognition often face significant administrative hurdles to gain federal recognition, and being labeled as "self-identified" can add to these challenges by casting doubt on our legitimacy.
    We face persistent disparagement on platforms like Wiki All the while we are still walking the path to recognition.
    The lack of recognition does not protect tribes from discrimination or persecution, and the term "self-identified" can perpetuate these issues by invalidating their identity.
    The term "self-identified" can be problematic for tribes like the Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe, especially in states like Massachusetts that lack a legislative recognition process, for several reasons: diminished sovereignty, historical erasure, legal implications, administrative challenges, discrimination and persecution.
    It's important for platforms like Wikipedia to use terminology that accurately reflects the status and history of tribes, especially those with longstanding recognition by other tribes and federal entities, rather than terms that can lead to misinterpretation and misrepresentation of their identity and rights. The Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe's situation exemplifies the need for careful consideration of how tribes are categorized and described in public and legal contexts.
    We urge you to consider the implications of this change and to seek a category name that respects and reflects the recognized status of tribes like the Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe. We are open to dialogue and collaboration to find a solution that honors the truth of our history and existence. Goldendragonfly77 ( talk) 09:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy rename per WP:C2D. NLeeuw ( talk) 09:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oppose. I think that this rename has major negative connotations that are unwarrented. Category:Unrecognized tribes does the same thing without the connotation. Mason ( talk) 18:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    What negative connotations? "Unrecognized tribes" doesn't work because these organizations are not actually tribes. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 11:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per Mason and Marcocapelle. While I understand the idea behind the "self-id" part, I think it should be on a case-by-case basis, rather than a blanket statement on all unrecognized groups. Self-ID also carries highly negative connotations, as Mason stated, and I don't think that warrants being a blanket statement. "Unrecognized" is also by far the most common term in literature, afaik, however I don't have any data to back that up. PersusjCP ( talk) 04:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    How is self-id a negative? It is simply describing that we don't have a citation to support their claims. I disagree with the statement that recognized tribes self-identify. The process to gain recognition is rigorous and recognized tribes, at least those federally recognized, have to document their continuous direct connection with the original tribes that were here prior to and during colonial contact. With no direct proof connecting them they are therefore self-identifying. They may very well share a heritage and be descendants but they cannot verify by showing a direct connection. That is only a negative because people on Wikipedia and even some of those who self-identify are trying to push that perspective to distort reality. At no point are we saying they are "pretendians". That would require reliable sources stating it through investigation. Self-identify does not equal "pretendian". -- ARose Wolf 13:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Saying someone "identifies" as something vs "being" something very much does have a negative connotation. It implies it is only in their head. There is even a famous transphobic joke (I identify as an attack helicopter/whatever) about how one's self-ID is meaningless. PersusjCP ( talk) 14:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    We cannot declare every one of these groups to be tribes; that's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Is there a term you see as more neutral than "identifies"? I don't mind if "self" is removed. Re: transphobia, a Native American tribe is a collective political identity, while a person's gender and sex is an individual identity; the two concepts are completely different from each other. Yuchitown ( talk) 15:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown reply
    It's wordy, but I would think along the lines of "claims descent/to be the successor from historical tribe/the aboriginal ___ people" or something like that. Maybe " Organizations that claim descent from Native American tribes." Since "descent"or being the "successor" is generally the more politically accurate idea to what modern day tribes are to historical entities. PersusjCP ( talk) 20:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    So sorry, but I believe that would be original research since not all the groups claim descent from Native American tribes, like the Una Nation of Mixed-Bloods from Eugene, Oregon, who see themselves as a completely new entity (that is somehow still Native American). Just as a reminder, the corresponding article is List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes, so this proposal isn't charting new territory but trying to bring the category inline with the article. Yuchitown ( talk) 20:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Ah that's a good point, I forgot about them... Okay, I support the current/future wording of "Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes," unless someone else can think of a more neutral, all-applicable wording. Maybe alternatively: get rid of the "self" in "self-identify," but I don't know if that makes it more neutral. Or like, "Orgainzations not recognized as Native American tribes," although that's kind of broad. Unfortunately I think because it is such a contentious topic that it is hard to be truly "neutral" in this. PersusjCP ( talk) 21:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    I can see how "self-identifying" could be regarded as problematic, as if they could be somehow "delusional" (although I must say this is the first time I've heard it having any negative connotation).
    But so can "unrecognised", right? Doesn't this imply that that these people are in fact tribes, but the U.S. government is just being 'stubborn, uncooperative and discriminatory' in 'refusing' to recognise them as such? The word "unrecognised" arguably carries a subtle WP:POV in it in favour of recognition, and arguably an implied criticism against the government that has so far not extended it to the applicants. NLeeuw ( talk) 00:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Support. All we can substantiate is that these organizations have collectively have identified as being Native American tribes. We cannot go further and do not have that authority; an outside authority having nothing to do with Wikipedia would have to make that distinction. Saying they identify does not mean none of the groups have Native American ancestry or that none of the groups are respected as successors of historical political tribes. But to collectively say all these groups are "tribes" is WP:OR and beyond our capacity or what we can support through published sources. Yuchitown ( talk) 15:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown reply
  • That does not solve the problem that recognized tribes also identify as being Native American tribes. The question is what distinguishes the two groups and the answer is that one group is recognized and the other group not. Not recognized is the key descriptor here. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    As mentioned above the article is already named List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. There are already List of federally recognized tribes in the contiguous United States, List of Alaska Native tribal entities, and State-recognized tribes in the United States, which are cross linked in the introduction of List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. Several federally recognized tribes are also state-recognized, but the general pattern is to go from broadest category into more specific classifications. Yuchitown ( talk) 20:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Yes but this does not address the objection. The objection is not about recognized, it is about unrecognized. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      What about "Organizations not recognized as Native American tribes" as I said in another thread here? The only problem is pretty much this applies to anything except federally-and-state recognized tribes, but maybe it is clear enough with context. PersusjCP ( talk) 21:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      That would include almost every organization on the planet. I’m not being facetious. “Identifying as Native American tribes” is a necessary component. Yuchitown ( talk) 02:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support - I've watched this discussion for a few days and tried to understand or see all the perspectives. I disagree with the negative connotation many are trying to place on self-identification and I think that term should defined somewhere on Wikipedia much like other terms have. The fact that it can be negative or potentially be negative shouldn't be considered because anything can be negative depending on who is defining it. What we should be looking at is the literal meaning of self-identification. These entities are the ultimate source of their identification. I know, some will say, The most notable ones did get recognized by reliable sources or government resolutions. But ultimately the source of their legitimacy when you dig into it is the subject entity itself. If they had proof of their connection to the original people they would have gotten federal recognition. So we are left with an entity that identifies itself as Native American. This may be true and it may not be true, it's still self-identification at its foundation. I support the change in title on that basis. Calling them "unrecognized tribes" places a legitimacy on these groups that cannot be verified. It is wholly non-neutral for Wikipedia to be the one conferring legitimacy. Many don't even call themselves tribes. -- ARose Wolf 12:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Just following up, "self-identified" is as broad and neutral as possible because a vast range of entities are in this category, including many with verified American Indian ancestry such as the Verona Band of Alameda County, Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, and the Yuchi (who are almost all enrolled in the Muscogee (Creek) Nation). Yuchitown ( talk) 16:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per what Mason and Marcocapelle said, which is that self-ID can have a highly negative connotation and "unrecognized" is the common term in literature. I've already encountered the issue of self-ID violating BLP in an article. If the category was changed as proposed, it's likely we'd have many more BLP issues in individual articles about people. This may seem like a minor word change, but there are strong negative connotations to saying someone who is Native "self identifies," because the inference is that they are Native in name only or falsely claiming to be Native. A change like this will impact countless articles covered by BLP because articles about Native people typically link to their tribe's article. -- SouthernNights ( talk) 19:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    There is no consensus in any discussion you can point to that says "self-identification" is considered a BLP violation. If I remove anything that I believe "can" be considered negative from every BLP on Wikipedia how long do you think it would take before I was community banned? Yet that's what you did based on your own personal opinion, not consensus. That is the worst obvious and most ridiculous example of POV pushing I have ever seen and quite frankly what I consider very much a misuse of the admin tools. It calls into question your neutrality, not on a personal level because we are all biased to some degree, but your willingness to use the tools you were granted to support your bias despite other good faith editors objecting. -- ARose Wolf 13:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    BLP guidelines state that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced — whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable — must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." In the case of the article I'm referring to, the recent edits that her tribe supposedly self-identifies absolutely qualified as such which is why I removed them. And I'm hardly the only one who sees it this way -- several editors raised concerns in this very category discussion about such descriptions being seen as negative. For more perspectives on this topic, check out this 2021 research paper published in the American Sociological Association journal (pdf download). Finally, your personal attacks here cross a definite line and violate Wikipedia policy. I strongly advise you do not continue with such attacks. SouthernNights ( talk) 17:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Her self-identification as Lipan Apache is not unsourced. We know that her non-profit organization has neither state nor federal recognition. That is a fact, not an opinion. Their identity as a Native group comes purely from their own self-identification, not from government recognition. You referring to "her tribe" is itself a POV and also factually untrue, because it isn't actually a tribe. It's a non-profit organization. There's nothing supposed about it. That's what it is. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 02:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    If my statements were attacks then so were yours when you attacked good faith editors by declaring us POV pushers. What does that make you pushing your personal point of view? -- ARose Wolf 12:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose There are a number of reasons why this conversation about Native American identity should not be renamed self-identify. Here are the top four in my mind:

1. The term self-identify as proposed is unmistakably negative, intentionally so. It’s negative in that it’s divisive, exclusionary, and demeaning. It attacks a significant part of Indian Country, like Lily Gladstone, by claiming they’re not real Native Americans, only pretending to be ones (of course there’s a page for that). No, it’s not racism, certainly not colorism. It’s crude chauvinism. It says that on one hand there are normal real Native Americans and on the other there are abnormal people who illegitimately and with no more foundation than their own volition identify as Native Americans, on no better basis than folks who identify as attack helicopters (credit Persus). Everybody hates attack helicopter wannabes. Native American, normal, positive. Self-identify Native American, abnormal, negative. The dots connecting the term as proposed to its pejorative roots couldn’t be drawn closer.

2. It effaces the concept of indigeneity. It says Native American is an identity established, not by self-identity, but by the US govt through a CDIB card. It says that Native Americans are creations not of thousands of years of independent existence and identity, but of the power that recently in their history came to occupy their land. Further, that occupying power can take back the identity only it, nobody and nothing else, can confer, as it has demonstrated in the past it can do.

3. The question is much bigger than this discussion setting can possibly do it justice. It’s not just a matter of slightly adjusting the name of a WP page. It’s a matter of possibly stumbling into a big philosophical and political decision due to a slight of hand; that self-identity is just a clearer way of saying not acknowledge by the US. No scholarly citations. No peer-reviewed article(s), it would never cut muster in that environment-- that's why there's none (I checked). Just the argument that, you know, it’s neater to say self-identify than non-recognized. And should it be done, a micro-minority POV has been imposed on a long-settled question of who decides who's Native American. From that point on, Native American identity means US citizenship and a CDIB. Born and raised in Paris and just found out you had a % grandparent with a CDIB, you're in. Born and raised in a historical Indigenous community in, say, Guatemala or Canada and migrated to an enclave of your community in Miami or LA where everybody still speaks your native language, you're out. Of course, it's a settled question that Indian Country is no bigger than the United States and Native American identity is entirely a Unitedstatean question. Not.

4. It goes against a vast and longstanding consensus on the concept of indigenous identity. This discussion has already been had over a much longer period, involving many many more participants, in a much more transparent and deliberative fashion. And a consensus was reached. Then instead of being shelved or secreted away, it was announced to the world and has been in place for years, known today as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UN). This widely publicized consensus speaks directly against the proposal to change the name of this page by declaring that indigenous identity is necessarily self-identify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsideh ( talk • contribs) 05:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC) There are more, but I'll stop here for now. Tsideh.:Tsideh Tsideh ( talk) 15:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC) — Tsideh ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Could you share where on Wikipedia this conversation took place? “It goes against a vast and longstanding consensus on the concept of indigenous identity”: I’ve never seen such a conversation on Wikipedia. Yuchitown ( talk) 14:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support I don't see any BLP violation or anything objectively negative about the term self-identify. I do see a big NPOV problem with the current category name as it uses the word "tribes" suggesting in Wikivoice that these are actual tribes in the context of indigenous American tribes. Doug Weller talk 11:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    I would say that is my biggest concern even more than the self-identity argument that seems to have developed. Some of these are organizations that have filed for 501C3 status with the same government they decry as holding them back from recognition. While some are heritage groups trying to bring awareness to Native American topics. Others may have legitimate claims. Still others are pretendian organizations seeking financial gain on the backs of Native Americans. The one thing that is common between them all is they cannot provide evidence which link them to the sovereign nations they claim to be part of with any continuity. Had they been able to do so they would have gained the political recognition from the US government to be able to speak for the respective nation they associate with. Without a doubt Wikipedia should not legitimize them in Wiki-voice as Native American/American Indian tribes, recognized or unrecognized, self-identified or otherwise and even if reliable sources that are not owned by legitimately recognized nations identify them as such. -- ARose Wolf 17:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong oppose. The proposed renaming would result in very awkward-sounding categories that thousands of readers and article subjects could find to be inaccurate, biased, or even offensive.
"Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes" is not wording that is typically used in academic literature.
Federal recognition is a controversial topic that should be discussed in the article text itself. It should not be forced into category names.
Category names should be based on serious non-biased anthropological and sociological research, and should not be based on decisions made by bureaucratic governments that may not always be fair.
I primarily focus on ethnic groups in the Middle East and Balkans, and categorizing thousands of individuals and entire clans as "self-identified" would be extremely offensive. For example, what if Serbia, Iran, or others do not officially recognize certain ethnic groups that Western anthropologists would certainly recognize as genuine ethnic or ethnoreligious groups? For example, if we were to label Yazidis or Alevis as self-identified minorities, that would be completely unencyclopedic, POV, and totally unsuitable for Wikipedia.
There are also many unrecognized ethnic groups in China, since the Chinese (PRC) government officially recognizes only 56 ethnic groups. Should we also categorize every single individual from those unrecognized minorities as "self-identified minorities"? Certainly not, as that would be very awkward, controversial, and out of line with what Wikipedia categories should really be all about.
Another good reason to oppose this renaming is the WP:CONCISE guideline. We shouldn't make category names overly long and complicated.
The same should apply to Native Americans, First Nations, and other indigenous peoples in North America.
I would also suggest taking a look at this book which discusses this issue in detail: Forgotten Tribes: Unrecognized Indians and the Federal Acknowledgment Process.
Equiyamnaya ( talk) 06:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
WP:NDNID was written by members of the Indigenous peoples of North America Wikiproject. It was thoughtfully constructed and thoroughly discussed to aid non-Native editors on Wikipedia gain an understanding of what being Native American is. Native American identity is not a matter of race or ethnicity. There is not a unified "Native American" ethnic identity. So the ethnic groups mentioned would not be an accurate comparison. This should not be a one-size-fits-all approach. -- ARose Wolf 13:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: To label all of the entities in the category tribes is definitely original research. The article was renamed to accurately and honestly include groups such as the Kaweah Indian Nation, Ani-Stohini/Unami, and Vinyard Indian Settlement as well as the Mississippi Choctaw Indian Federation, Brothertown Indians, and Verona Band of Alameda County (i.e. those with no demonstrated connection to historic Native American communities to those with well-documented connections). I've cited Miller's book, but it was also written in 2006; many of these groups have formed since then. This lengthy discussion will probably result in "No Consensus"; however, all of the editors who actively contribute to and improve Native American topics on Wikipedia have voted to "Support" the renaming. Yuchitown ( talk) 14:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • I haven't seen any opposition to using "Native American" instead of "in the United States" so we seem to have a minimal consensus. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Indian massacres

Nominator's rationale: merge/redirect, it looks like the scope of the two categories coincides. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom Mason ( talk) 17:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Reverse merge given that main article is List of Indian massacres in North America. I don't think that title is very helpful though, as the scope is both of and by "Indians". But that should be discussed at its talk page, not here. NLeeuw ( talk) 06:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment there have been massacres in India... so the category name is ambiguous. This category name should be salted, so that India cannot use this category name either. -- 65.92.247.66 ( talk) 05:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Agree that "Indian" is ambiguous, so I'd rather stick to merge as nominated rather than reverse merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcocapelle ( talk • contribs) 06:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Intersex transgender people

Nominator's rationale: Redundant, as all intersex people are LGBT. Editor has been warned about their alternative definition of LGBTQI+ User_talk:Bohemian_Baltimore#Category:Pansexual women#Aromanticism_and_Asexuality_are_the_A_of_LGBTQIA+_and_Intersex_is_the_I_and_is_inherently_an_LGBTQIA+_identity Mason ( talk) 17:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Like the other comments, I support this merger. These categories were erroneously created and this needs to be corrected. Historyday01 ( talk) 02:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support - As proposed (disclosure, I was the user that warned them about their misinformed interpretation of LGBTQIA+ at User_talk:Bohemian_Baltimore#Aromanticism_and_Asexuality_are_the_A_of_LGBTQIA+_and_Intersex_is_the_I_and_is_inherently_an_LGBTQIA+_identity). Raladic ( talk) 19:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support, but manually merge because articles may already be in a subcategory of a merge target. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support, with exception of "Intersex transgender men" and "Intersex transgender women," as those can be useful categories and don't have the same issue as the other proposed categories for deletion. ForsythiaJo ( talk) 21:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Merge the last three (LGBT intersex categories), keep the rest per ForsythiaJo. All intersex people are categorized as LGBT, but are all intersex men gay men or transgender men? The rationale doesn't apply to these categories. -- MikutoH talk! 23:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Question for the keeps, I don't think the 3x intersection is supportable in terms of category size or under EGRS. Can somebody point to some literature that supports these intersections? Mason ( talk) 00:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose I strongly oppose the erasure of asexual and intersex people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender and the subsequent eradication of any categories that mention LGBT intersex and asexual people. Being both LGBT and intersex or LGBT and asexual is a relevant and defining intersection of two oppressed groups, a minority within a minority. Likewise, there are many intersex people who identify as cis/hetero or straight and many asexuals who identify as cis/heteroromantic or straight. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 10:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    This is not erasure of people who are asexual and LGBTQIA. It is literally in the acronym already. Mason ( talk) 12:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Bohemian Baltimore: I totally agree. I hope we can gather more support and achieve consensus from a neutral point of view to oppose deletion of this of category. I left a message on your talk page for the same. — CrafterNova  [ TALK ]  [ CONT ] 16:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Smasongarrison Yes, it is erasure. And "LGBT" is the standard acronym used for articles and categories for Wikipedia. Not all asexual people are gay, lesbian, bi, or transgender. Gay asexual men exist. Lesbian asexual women exist. Biromantic asexuals exist. Transgender asexuals exist. Just as there are asexuals who identify as straight and/or hetero. There needs to be a way to describe and acknowledge the reality of asexuals who are LGB and/or T. A marginalized group within a marginalized group. As a compromise, I'd be fine with merging the LGBT categories but keeping the L, G, B, and T subcategories. Those are undoubtedly valid. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 22:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Volodimerovichi family

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Rurikids. "Volodimerovichi" is rarely used in comparison to "Rurikids", also does not follow the title of the main article. Mellk ( talk) 07:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This category is fine as it is. It is part of larger tree of princely clans and branches of Kievan Rus'. During several renamings and recategorisations last year, it was agreed to be cautious with categorising anyone as a "Rurikid", as the historicity of Rurik (as well as Sineus and Truvor) is disputed as a possibly a founding myth (similar to Remus and Romulus etc.), and there is no concept of a "Rurikid dynasty" in historical sources until the 16th century. However, Volodimer' (Vladimir, Volodymyr, Uladzemir) is a well-known historical figure, and his family / descendants are commonly known as "Volodimerovichi" in English-language reliable sources. Just like, for example, Category:Sviatoslavichi family and Category:Olgovichi family. It is preferable if there is a main article with the same name for these families, but so far, there are only redirects to the founder of each princely branch, e.g. Olgovichi redirects to Oleg I of Chernigov, Sviatoslavichi to Sviatoslav II of Kiev, and Volodimerovichi to Vladimir the Great. It's also much better for navigation not to lump all these people into one big category, but by commonly recognised princely branches. NLeeuw ( talk) 15:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    BTW if the main article title is important, shouldn't this be WP:C2D to Category:Family life and children of Vladimir I? (I wouldn't be in favour of that, but that would make better sense according to the rationale). NLeeuw ( talk) 15:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • As there is no article Volodimerovichi yet, it would be helpful to add a source in the header of the category page indicating that this is a common name among historians indeed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      Sounds like a good idea. NLeeuw ( talk) 06:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    There are no such branches at this stage, this comes later and we already have cats for those as they are widely accepted Rurikid branches. The term "Volodimerovichi" is used by a couple of historians instead of "Rurikids". Whether Rurik existed or not is irrelevant because the term "Rurikid" is widely used by later historians (similarly to the term "Kievan Rus" even though the state was not called as such then), hence this is POV to use an uncommon term that has not been widely accepted (yet). Mellk ( talk) 05:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Hmmm now I'm beginning to doubt. Christian Raffensperger seems to use it for all members of princely clans of Kievan Rus' in general, as a replacement "Riurikovichi", rather than just Volodimer' and his descendants. One wonders about the predecessors of Volodimer' (Yaropolk, Sviatoslav, Igor, Oleg and the alleged Riurik), who could hardly retro-actively be called "Volodimerovichi". I'll think about it some more, I'll get back to this issue. NLeeuw ( talk) 07:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    I have checked the literature more thoroughly, and I think it might have been a mistake to name this category in this way. Since the early 2010s, scholars including Raffensperger, Ostrowski, Halperin and others have been using "Volodimerovichi" as an alternative to "R(i)urikovichi" or "R(i)urikids" altogether, and not as a specific branch within the larger clan structure of Kievan Rus', like the later -ovichi families. Theoretically, "Volodimerovichi" could still be used that way (and sometimes it is), but this is not widespread in historiography yet.
    I do think it's useful to keep it as a separate category, but it's better to change the name according to our conventions. As both nom and I have suggested, it is useful to follow the main article title wherever possible. However, the current main article title is Family life and children of Vladimir I. The last part probably should be Vladimir the Great instead of Vladimir I, given the Vladimir the Great biography title. (I myself prefer Volodimer I of Kiev, which is common amongst modern scholars, but not (yet) the WP:COMMONNAME in all English-language literature). The first part is also unusual; there is no other enwiki article title with Family life and children of X. The common formula is Family of X. So per WP:TITLECON, it should be Family of Vladimir the Great.
    Therefore, I would like to propose the following:
    Defer decision in this CfR, and initiate Requested Move of Family life and children of Vladimir I to Family of Vladimir the Great.  Done. If the RM is approved, then
    Rename to Category:Family of Vladimir the Great. Does that seem like a good solution? NLeeuw ( talk) 14:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • In that case I would prefer merge as nominated. We could hypothetically create a "family of" for every grand prince but it would just overlap with Category:Rurikids. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      @ Marcocapelle Family life and children of Vladimir I is the only "Family of" main article of a (grand) prince of Kiev. So I'm not worried about having to create a "family of" category for every grand prince as long as there is no "family of" main article for every grand prince. Moreover, it arguably merits a category on account of his many wives and children, and subsequent princely branches directly and exclusively descended from him. That is quite uncommon in Kievan Rus' history. NLeeuw ( talk) 10:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      I have initiated the RM at Talk:Family life and children of Vladimir I#Requested move 10 April 2024. I'll ping the relevant users. NLeeuw ( talk) 11:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      So far everyone seems to be supporting the RM. We'll see what happens. NLeeuw ( talk) 06:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • The fact that the article exists, with this name, does not mean a category should also exist. I still think it is rather arbitrary to split off one particular "family" from Category:Rurikids. Ultimately Rurikids is the family. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Infrastructure

Nominator's rationale: merge, strongly overlapping scope. (Of course if there is consensus about this, then all subcategories need to be nominated as well.) Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Support. I think this is a really good idea. (However, if the decision ends with Keep, think we'd need to have a really really clear definition in the category description to support maintenance. ) Mason ( talk) 19:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
For what it's worth, I think this category should remain as is. :) KīlaueaGlows ( talk) 06:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Leaning oppose. Some of the subcategories of Category:Infrastructure would be seemingly out of place in Category:Buildings and structures. For instance Energy infrastructure‎, Category:Infrastructure of the Holocaust, Category:History of infrastructure, Category:Infrastructure investment and Category:IT infrastructure wouldn't make sense as subcategories of . Category:Buildings and structures. Pichpich ( talk) 21:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Ok, then for the top category it is too early to be merged. The subcategories by date and location are set categories, and items of infrastructure are always buildings or structures, so this objection does not apply to these subcategories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose I've been looking at some categories about canals and they are appropriately categorized under "infrastructure" rather than "buildings and structures". I think with their addition and that of other similar categories. "structure" would become so broad (anything that is built?) as to become almost meaningless. There might be some overlap here but I think that the solution might be to change "buildings and structures" to just "buildings" and leave "infrastructure" be. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Looking at more categories, it looks like some "infrastructure" categories are placed under the parent categories of "buildings and structures" which I think is more appropriate than merging the two. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:16th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Portuguese Macau

Nominator's rationale: sibling are all called Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Macau, even though those were also during the time of Portuguese Macau (1557–1999) . Category:19th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Macau‎ Category:20th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Macau Mason ( talk) 18:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Shouldn't they all be bishops of Macau? Per List of bishops of Macau. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Hmmmm, I've been thinking of them like a country of work category, like that's where the bishop is serving, as opposed to the dioses. If we changed it to "of" Macau, would that mean that all the bishops would also have to be in the parent category? Category:XXXX-century Roman Catholic bishops in China (or Asia)? My goal is to make all the categories consistent, and possibly avoid having a perpetual edit war over the parent country category. [1] Mason ( talk) 18:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Long story short, there are bishops appointed to dioceses elsewhere who served and were based in Macau (e.g. as administrators of the diocese, which covered an area large enough to be subdivided into hundreds of dioceses in the following centuries). These are bishops in Macau but not Bishops of Macau. 58.152.55.172 ( talk) 08:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Reverse rename. That was the Portuguese period, and there was a time when it was a província ultramarina. 219.77.182.250 ( talk) 13:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    What does that even mean? Mason ( talk) 00:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • It is obvious that it was Portuguese, that does not have to be added to the category name per se. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      • Then name the categories accordingly. 58.152.55.172 ( talk) 09:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
        • No, I am just saying that it is not necessary. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
          • Not necessary per se; but, as I read it, not something that cannot and shouldn't be done. 58.152.55.172 ( talk) 08:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Rename the 17th to 20th-century categories accordingly and make them along with the 16th-century category under the tree of Category:Portuguese Macau. 58.152.55.172 ( talk) 08:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    FYI, these are all the same IP and a well-known one at that WP:LTA/HKGW Mason ( talk) 13:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. Corresponding lists already exist. PepperBeast (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Strong Keep: It looks like the nominator has no understanding of the importance of Sahitya Akademi Awards in India. While List article may exist, it is important to have this category for the recipients. The award is presented every year to writers of the most outstanding books of literary merit published in any of the 22 languages separately. Nobel prize list articles also exists, as well as categories for recipients of each categories of Nobel prizes.
    -- Tinu Cherian - 11:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Recipients of Indian civil awards and decorations

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAWARD PepperBeast (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. The above awards aren't worth an exception from WP:OCAWARD, they are not comparable to a Nobel prize. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. We're not starting this again, are we? Most of these are clearly notable and defining. They include the Bharat Ratna, the highest civilian honour that can be awarded by India, and the Kaisar-i-Hind Medal, an extremely prestigious award given in British India. If they're not defining, then what on earth is? WP:OCAWARD certainly does not say that awards have to be comparable to a Nobel Prize; neither does it say that only international awards should be categorised, which is what such a suggestion implies. The deletion rationale is entirely spurious and ridiculously brief. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I find it very hard to believe that a category based on India's highest civilian honour is not appropriate as defining. If that is the argument then the entire category tree at Category:Order of the British Empire, which contains about a hundred subcategories and many thousands of articles should be added to this nomination. As should the substantial category tree at Category:Recipients of United States civil awards and decorations. By singling out one country this nomination makes no sense. AusLondonder ( talk) 15:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Temples (LDS Church) in Latin America

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT: all pages are already in child Category:Temples (LDS Church) in South America or its subcategories, or in sibling Category:Temples (LDS Church) in North America or its subcategories. Thus it has little navigational value and just adds category clutter to the articles. NLeeuw ( talk) 16:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Transport and the Mercosur

Nominator's rationale: Category:Transport and the Mercosur has 1 P, 0 C. Upmerge to grandparent Category:Mercosur for now without prejudice. Dual merge won't be necessary, I put the only article ( Vehicle registration plates of the Mercosur) in sibling Category:Road transport in South America already. The upmerging will empty Category:Economy of the Mercosur, which was already a redundant layer; it should also be upmerged for now without prejudice (merging instead of deletion for logging purposes). NLeeuw ( talk) 15:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Jewish nobility

Nominator's rationale: arbirtrary and irrelevant intersection by ethnicity. I found this category added to Yehudi Menuhin on my watchlist and I'm about to revert it because, while it's true that he was Jewish and that he was a Life peer, the intersection of these facts (especially the latter one) in a category seems more than a little bizarre and "non-defining", because he was by far best known as a violinist. There are probably many other examples just like this one. Graham87 ( talk) 09:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose, this is a well-populated category. AHI-3000 ( talk) 17:14, 8 April 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) 15:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Graham87 has a good point that lists allow for context that categories don't. But I am not in favour of listification either, as the net here has evidently been cast far too wide. E.g. someone like James Goldsmith (picked at random) has nothing to do with "nobility". NLeeuw ( talk) 15:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. It is another example of a non-useful, mostly meaningless category created by intersecting two unrelated traits. We don't have categories for Christian, Muslim, or Hindu nobility and we shouldn't have one for Jewish nobility either. 220.235.78.155 ( talk) 03:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and other users. It's a specific category that's already filled within the various subcategories for nobility per nationality. Furthermore, as mentioned above, there is no specific category for other major religions like Christians or Muslims. Clear Looking Glass ( talk) 10:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Canadian military personnel from Kelowna

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

Category:Lists of ambassadors to Northern Cyprus

Nominator's rationale: Category created just to hold one list. This would be fine if there were multiple lists to file here, but is not necessary for just one -- but given that Northern Cyprus is a disputed territory which is diplomatically recognized only by Turkey, it's impossible to file multiple lists here. The list is already in Category:Ambassadors of Turkey to Northern Cyprus, which is all that's needed in context -- but this category isn't necessary if it will only ever contain one list. Bearcat ( talk) 13:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Public high schools in Chicago suburbs

Nominator's rationale: Recreation at a new name of a category previously deleted last year per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 25#Category:Public high schools in suburbs of Chicago. Again, the same issue remains as last time: we categorize schools by the places that they're in, but we do not categorize schools by the places that the places they're in happen to be near. Bearcat ( talk) 13:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:LGBT-related music

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

Category:Songs against capitalism

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

Category:Songs against racism and xenophobia

Nominator's rationale: Generally our songs by topic categories are 'about' not 'against'. Ex. Category:Songs about poverty. See also Category:Songs about social issues. I suggest renaming this; the other category that may need similar treatment would be Category:Songs against capitalism (subcat to Category:Songs about consumerism, not Category:Songs against consumerism...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom, for consistency. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support renaming. J 1982 ( talk) 10:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral, as as I said with the songs about/against capitalism nomination, many of these songs have lyrics which are quite clearly critical of racism and/or xenophobia. With the songs about poverty or consumerism, those songs aren’t explicitly against the subject of said topics as much but are more about the topic itself and its effects. Velociraptor888 ( talk) 23:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)

Nominator's rationale: No need for disambiguation. User:Namiba 00:22, 8 April 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) 01:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:.io video games

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining trait. This simply indicates that the game in question has it's web hostname in the .io TLD. It is akin to having a category for ".com video games", ".org video games", etc. There is no connection between these games from a developer, publisher, or otherwise manner. -- ferret ( talk) 16:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will note the TfD was closed as delete, FWIW.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:53, 8 April 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) 01:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri in literature & education

Convert Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri in literature & education to article List of Recipients of the Padma Shri in literature and education
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. Should probably be listified. PepperBeast (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Lists already exist, starting with List of Padma Shri award recipients (1954–1959). Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as this awards are defining characteristic of recipients and they are frequently labelled as Padma Awardee in references. Another reason is lists of Padma awardees are not by their fields but by year. Each list contains all awardee of all field in a year. So field-wise categories help to find awardees in perticular field too like above literature and education.- Nizil ( talk) 11:54, 14 April 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) 01:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply


April 15

Category:Feminist historians

Nominator's rationale: merge to clarify that this is about women's history rather than a category of historians who happen to support feminism. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Wouldn't this one be more specific to Historians of feminism? Mason ( talk) 22:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I don't think these are the same scope. I'm leaning Keep. NLeeuw ( talk) 10:18, 11 April 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) 00:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Trademark attorneys

Nominator's rationale: Do we really need to make the distinction for what kind of intellectual property law they practice? (With the exception for patent attorneys). Mason ( talk) 20:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, the articles say they are specializing in intellectual property, broadly. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Canadian criminal lawyers

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between occupation, type of law, and nationality. We don't even have a parent category for Category:Criminal lawyers. Mason ( talk) 20:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Non-binary lesbians

Nominator's rationale: I don't really know what to do with this category (and the merge target). I think it needs a merge and rename. I think that these are supposed to be about non-binary people who identity as lesbian or gay. Mason ( talk) 21:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep the non-binary lesbians category name/title is very objective, right? It's in common use in the non-binary community. The Category:Non-binary gay people was named Category:Non-binary gay men (its naming was discussed at WT:GAY#Non-binary gay category). All biographies in these category were already in the Category:Lesbians and Category:People with non-binary gender identities, with help of WP:PetScan I populated these categories. -- MikutoH talk! 23:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure that these intersections meets the EGRS criteria for defining. The lesbian name may be objective, but I don't think it works in tandem with Non-binary gay people. I found the lesbian category nested within the gay category, which made the entire nested structure more confusing. Can you point to some literature on Non-binary gay people, because I haven't been able to find any? (Also the thread you linked to voices concerns about the category, including its creation being disruptive; so the thread isn't that clear cut.) Mason ( talk) 00:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
In this case, I would support a keep as well, provided that each category is defined enough so they can effectively be used. As such, I reject this nomination / merger. Historyday01 ( talk) 01:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep A simple Google search yields plenty of results for non-binary lesbians. It's clearly a common and defining identity. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 10:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete sure, these identities exist & are in use, but I don't see evidence they are defining for indiduvals. ( t · c) buidhe 00:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Our sexual orientation categories covering same-sex attraction are fully diffused by gender ( Category:Gay men, Category:Lesbians, and Category:Non-binary gay people). Getting rid of Category:Non-binary gay people would make it impossible for a nb person who does not identify as either a gay man or a lesbian be categorized as gay (in the broad, gender-neutral sense).-- Trystan ( talk) 02:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    That was part of my hesitation, as well as motivation for merging into a name that was more clearly gender neutral. Mason ( talk) 03:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:San Quentin State Prison inmates

Nominator's rationale: This is the naming convention for prison inmates. See Category:Inmates of Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary, Category:Inmates of ADX Florence, Category:Inmates of Sing Sing, Category:Inmates of the Marshalsea, Category:Inmates of Sighet prison, Category:Inmates of Pitești prison, etc. The only time the convention is "Category:X inmates" is where X is a ghetto, e.g. Category:Łódź Ghetto inmates. Dennis C. Abrams ( talk) 17:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nominator's rationale jengod ( talk) 23:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional characters by political orientation

Nominator's rationale: split, this category is confusing in its current implementation, it contains fictional anarchists, monarchists, nationalists and socialists on the one hand (by political orientation, not activists) and environmentalists, advocates of women's rights and pacifists on the other hand (activists, not political orientation). These are very different things. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose, I don't think this is necessary. And are you really sure that environmentalism and feminism not specific political ideologies/movements? AHI-3000 ( talk) 21:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • They are primarily social movements and certainly not a political orientation like socialism. In relationship to politics they have only one issue on their agenda and their target audience is the entire political spectrum, not one ideology. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Well if you take a look at Category:People by political orientation, Category:Feminists and Category:Pacifists are listed as subcategories. Anyways it's still not necessary to split up these categories in any way, they're not even too large. AHI-3000 ( talk) 17:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • It isn't a matter of size, it is a matter of plain wrong. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      Well that's just what you think. AHI-3000 ( talk) 17:36, 11 April 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) 16:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Pourashavas of Bangladesh

Nominator's rationale: Redundant: "Pourashava" means municipality in Bengali. Bolideleoi ( talk) 14:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Students of Ziaur Rahman Azmi

Nominator's rationale: Small category, fails WP:OCASSOC -- wooden superman 13:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom, and "students" categories are used for people who are only notable as a student. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Support per nom and marco. Mason ( talk) 03:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Ziaur Rahman Azmi

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEPON: Individual works by a person should not be included in an eponymous category but should instead be in a sub-category such as Category:Novels by Agatha Christie. -- wooden superman 07:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Disagree, there can be another category naming that such as Category:Hussain Ahmad Madani and Category:Books by Hussain Ahmad Madani. Bengali editor ( talk) 09:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The difference there is that Category:Hussain Ahmad Madani contains other articles which aren't books, thus warranting an WP:EPONCAT, this one doesn't. -- wooden superman 09:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://alhidaayah.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Transcript-IDTP-5.pdf

Category:American Jewish billionaires

Nominator's rationale: I haven't done much editing in categorization recently, so maybe the rules have changed, but this one sure reeks of a WP:OCEGRS problem to me. At the very least, there ought to be community consensus (rather than the actions of a single editor) that this intersection is sufficiently noteworthy and unbiased to merit inclusion; I do not believe it is, certainly not without context. Chubbles ( talk) 07:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Neo-Latin writers

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C: Per all child cats and per parent Category:Writers in Latin by period.
Copy of speedy discussion
The 5 speedy nominees were opposed by Jim Killock, see Copy of speedy discussion above. NLeeuw ( talk) 06:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I do not follow the objection. If this is about style then the categories should be named Category:Writers in foo-style Latin and the larger part of the proposal follows that format. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    "Category:Writers of late antiquity in Latin" is extremely clunky; I have no opinion about the rest. Furius ( talk) 20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • True, for consistency this should become Category:Writers in late antique Latin Category:Writers in Late Latin. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      So these are the style names: Old Latin; Classical Latin; Late Latin; Medieval Latin; Renaissance Latin; Neo-Latin.
      We have instead Category:Writers of late antiquity in Latin; Category:Renaissance writers in Latin; Category:Medieval writers in Latin. These remove or obscure the "styles" and make them in effect "period".
      The grammar objection is this. I write in Noun-Neo-Latin. I am a adjective-Neo-Latin noun-writer. I am not in Neo-Latin. Thus a writer is not "in" Neo-Latin. Thus writers cannot be "in" Neo-Latin. At least; it's not great English. I can imagine someone saying "A list of writers in English"; yet this isn't really correct, it should be a "A list of English writers", for the same reason (English here is an adjective, not a noun) (or "A list of writers writing in English", so that English can be used as a noun). see wiktionary:en:Latin#English regarding the noun and adjectival uses of Latin. Jim Killock (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      Note that Category:Latin-language writers of late antiquity is a child of Category:Writers of late antiquity. " late antiquity" refers to the time they lived in, not (directly) what kind of Latin they wrote in. Alt renaming to something like Writers in late antique Latin would change the scope.
      I must say I find the category fairly dubious to begin with: it has only 6 articles (which could easily be diffused to "by century" categories), and the rest are just Xth-century writers in Latin‎ from the 3rd to the 8th, all of which are already children of Category:Writers in Latin by century. The added value of such arbitrary duplication eludes me. "Late antiquity" isn't a very commonly used term anyway; the conventional timeframes are "Antiquity" and "Middle Ages". If we can't agree on how to properly phrase the catname, maybe we should just delete or upmerge it instead.
      it should be a "A list of English writers" This is the kind of convention we have been phasing out for years, because adjectives such as "English" (or "Latin", for that matter) are ambiguous due to their multiple meanings (language, country, nationality, ethnicity, geography/location, "style" (e.g. English landscape garden, which you could surprisingly create anywhere on Earth outside England as well)), which almost inevitably leads to confusion and miscategorisation. "Latin-language writers of late antiquity" is hardly a prettier phrase than "writers in Latin", which at least makes clear that the writers wrote in Latin, and that they were not ethnically speaking one of the Latins, or from the Latin League, or from Latin America, or a songwriter of Latin music songs etc. etc. NLeeuw ( talk) 16:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      I agree the categorisation is not done correctly overall. They conflate period and style. The category names are mostly unambiguiously about style. The socially predominate categorisation of Latin is by style, so that is what people will expect.
      I also agree with the principle of removing ambiguous phrases, I just don't agree with naming things with incorrect grammar. Writers are not in a noun-Language. People do something in a language; books and poems are written in a language. A different formulation is needed for "writers" to use the adjectival form avoiding "in". Jim Killock (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      What about Category:Books in Latin? Is that also grammatically incorrect? If not, why not?
      I see both catnames as merely an abbreviation of a longer phrase.
      Books in Latin = Books that were written in Latin
      Writers in Latin = Writers who wrote in Latin
      Makes sense to me. (Also per WP:CONCISE, or whatever the category equivalent of that is). NLeeuw ( talk) 15:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • It is always possible to read things differently than intended. "Neo-Latin writers" could be read, hypothetically, as writers who are Neo-Latin themselves. Likewise, reading "writers in Neo-Latin" as if the writers are in something themselves is equally bizarre. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Yemeni scientists by century

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There is only one century in here, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason ( talk) 04:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Politicians arrested in Yemen

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection of occupation and location of arrest. Mason ( talk) 04:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, we shouldn't have "arrested" categories anyway. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom and Marco. NLeeuw ( talk) 17:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Marching

Nominator's rationale: Purge or reparent. Are pride parades part of military traditions? There's already Category:Military marching and Category:Military marches. -- MikutoH talk! 02:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Electronic rock musicians

Nominator's rationale: Individual musicians and groups are not the same. Either populate this with articles of individual people or delete it as an innapropriate redirect without another good target. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 01:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Aphex Twin songs

Nominator's rationale: (Or maybe "Aphex Twin compositions".) Strictly speaking, songs contain singing. Aphex Twin tracks have no singing, or no singing in the traditional sense. For example, it is not really accurate to describe Avril 14, a piano instrumental, as a "song". Popcornfud ( talk) 17:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Lean oppose. Don't other categories have non-singing songs in them? I don't think it's helpful for navigation to make the distinction between songs that contain vocal tracks and those that do not. Mason ( talk) 20:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Just for clarity, I'm not proposing we create separate tracks for vocal and instrumental Aphex Twin tracks, just keeping a single category and renaming it. (There are very few, if any, Aphex Twins that could really be called "songs" in my view, and I also suspect the habit of calling non-vocal tracks "songs" tends to be an Americanism, but that's probably by the by.) Popcornfud ( talk) 21:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 12:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

& merge Category:Songs written by Aphex Twin to Category:Compositions by Aphex Twin per Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. Category:Songs written by Aphex Twin was created 15 January 2016‎; Category:Aphex Twin songs was created 21 October 2007‎, is therefore older, and therefore should be the merge target. This seems to be a comprehensive solution to all issues observed above. NLeeuw ( talk) 14:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on NL's proposal would be very much appreciated!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 22:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Love it! Mason ( talk) 00:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Should I ping the other participants to ask their opinion? They might not have read this, but I don't want to unnecessarily alert people. NLeeuw ( talk) 06:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • This final solution is surely in line with my earlier comments. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Marcocapelle Don't you mean 'certainly'? I often see you use the word 'surely' where I expect the word 'certainly'. As far as I know, in English, 'surely' is usually used in a question sentence to someone else, asking them to confirm something you would expect / like them to believe, or to say, or to do / to have done. 'Surely you locked the door, didn't you?' It's like the English equivalent of '...toch zeker wel...?' See the usage notes at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surely because [surely] connotes strong affirmation, it is used when the speaker or writer expects to be agreed with. Unlike sure it may be used neutrally—the reader or hearer may or may not agree, and it is often used when the writer is trying to persuade.
    • Surely you must admit that it was a good decision.
    In this case, it's like you're asking yourself whether you agree with your own earlier comments. 'Deze oplossing is toch zeker wel in lijn met mijn eerdere opmerkingen?' There is nobody who can answer that question except for you. NLeeuw ( talk) 06:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Then my "surely" should be read as "certainly". Happy to improve my English vocabulary. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      You're welcome! NLeeuw ( talk) 00:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: ....and I forgot to tag Category:Songs written by Aphex Twin last week. Oops. If there are no further comments by next week, we should be all set for implementing NL's proposal. Apologies for the delay/third relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 00:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Ah no worries HouseBlaster. :) NLeeuw ( talk) 17:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply


April 14

Category:Category:Overseas Chinese Presidents

Nominator's rationale: I think this means 'Politicians of Chinese descent who became President of a country', which seems like too narrow a category. Giant Snowman 15:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge this category into Category:Politicians of Chinese descent instead. AHI-3000 ( talk) 21:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 23:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:12th-century French novelists

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. The 12th-century novelists category is too small for diffusion by nationality (a.k.a. there's 2 people in the entire tree). Mason ( talk) 23:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Independant Native American countries

Nominator's rationale: Or plausibly, just a rename to correct the spelling error. Redundant at best with other categories, the notion of a "country" as we understand it seems dangerously nebulous and unattested in several member articles here. Remsense 诉 22:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Visual artists in late 20th-century Australia

Nominator's rationale: Can we make these categories more defining? I really don't know what to do with them. Perhaps split by art movement? Mason ( talk) 19:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Food gods

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT PepperBeast (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Support merging Category:Harvest deities to Category:Agricultural deities, but keep Category:Food deities instead of merging it, I think the Food gods/goddesses are related but not the exact same thing as Agricultural gods/goddesses. AHI-3000 ( talk) 21:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
In principle, I agree with you, but all the deities I checked that are currently categorized as food gods/goddesses/deities are actually harvest/agriculture gods. PepperBeast (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose merge for Food deities agree with @ AHI-3000, The Hindu goddess Annapurna (goddess) is the goddess of food, but is unrelated to Agriculture. Phosop is the goddess of rice, not agriculture in general. Mellona is the goddess of apples. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per this request at my talk page (previously closed as "merge").
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 16:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Canadian mIlitary personnel by city

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy renamed as a straightforward spelling error that didn't require debate. Bearcat ( talk) 15:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There is a typo in the category name, there should not be a capital I inside "military". ☆ Bri ( talk) 15:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per WP:C2A, this could have been listed at speedy. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy rename per WP:C2A. NLeeuw ( talk) 04:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • It's not necessary to take a straightforward spelling error like this to CFD for seven full days of discussion, and this could have been handled as a speedy. Dirty deed already done, dirt cheap. Bearcat ( talk) 15:49, 16 April 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:Film controversies in Spain

Nominator's rationale: All 4 items are articles about the films themselves. Follow-up to previous CfDs finding that the controversy should be the subject of a stand-alone article, and not just a (sub)section in the article about the film itself.
Precedents:
That also applies here. Should a sufficient number of stand-alone articles about film controversies in Spain be written, this category can be re-created without prejudice. NLeeuw ( talk) 14:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural oppose. I would note that there are 59 other sibling categories in Category:Film controversies by country, and all of them are populated almost entirely by "the films themselves" rather than "stand-alone" articles about the controversies as separate topics. So I'm unclear on why this would be different than all of the others — either they're all problematic for the same reasons and need to be collectively considered together, or this is as valid as the others, and there's no legitimate reason to single this one out for different treatment than the others.
    As well, most of the "precedents" listed above aren't particularly relevant here — Christmas, adventure and animation didn't get deleted on the grounds that it was fundamentally improper to categorize films as "controversial", they got deleted on the grounds that the intersection of controversy with genre wasn't defining. So I'm not at all wedded to the need for this, but those categories have nothing to do with it because they're not the same issue in the slightest. Bearcat ( talk) 15:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Fair points. In my defence, I didn't intend to single out Spain and spare all other countries in the world; I was just busy improving the Category:Culture of Spain tree, as you can see.
    Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, feel free to follow-up nominate all other categories populated only by articles about the films and not stand-alone articles on the controversies they created. I did not intend setting a higher standard for Spain; if we conclude this category is improper, or at least improperly populated at the moment, that should evidently apply to all children of Category:Film controversies by country. NLeeuw ( talk) 19:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Dutch cookies

Nominator's rationale: overcategorization, attempt to empty the categories cookie and Dutch cuisine. The Banner  talk 07:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Rajputana Agency

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content of the category (and purge the main article which still can be kept in the header). Reparent the first one under Category:Princely states of Rajasthan. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Mohave tribe

Nominator's rationle: The Mohave people belong to two tribes, the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe and the Colorado River Indian Tribes. The current name implies that the Mohave people belong to a single tribe. Rename for accuracy. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 20:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comments I guess the proposed move is an improvement, although the fact that people belong to two different federally recognized tribes does not prevent them belonging to a single (non federally recognized) tribe. It is best to forestall readers drawing the inference, even if it is an invalid inference, hence deleting "peopletribe" † from the name is an improvement. OTOH article Mohave is currently a dab, so the shorter name may be ambiguous. I ask whether Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America has (or ought to have) any standard/guideline for category (and corresponding article) names —— e.g. capitalization; legal name vs common name; and group taxonomy labels (e.g. "people" vs "nation" vs "tribe" vs nothing; always vs disambiguation vs never). From browsing, I infer that "Category:Foo people" is the standard for subcats of Category:Native American people by tribe, so Category:Mohave people is about individuals (plural "people") whereas Mohave people is about the group (singular "people"). (The fact that Category:Mohave people is a subcat of Category:Native American people by tribe also seems to imply, contra the nomination, that that the Mohave people are in some sense a tribe.) jnestorius( talk) 23:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • † corrected myself: current name is "Mohave tribe", not "Mohave people" jnestorius( talk) 22:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Regardless whether it is renamed or not, shouldn't we convert the category page to a disambiguation page just like in article space? Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Jnestorius Being a people is not the same as being a tribe. EG, the article for Cherokee refers to them as an Indigenous people belonging to three tribes; the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band, and the United Keetoowah Band. Mohave peoplehood doesn't imply being a single tribe. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 11:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
the article for Cherokee refers to them as an Indigenous people belonging to three tribes No, it says "three Cherokee tribes are federally recognized", not the same thing. It also says 'By the 19th century, White American settlers had classified the Cherokee of the Southeast as one of the "Five Civilized Tribes"'. Five Civilized Tribes says "The term Five Civilized Tribes was applied ... to the five major Native American nations in the Southeast". Category:Cherokee people is a direct subcat of Category:Native American people by tribe. Article Tribe (Native American) says "In the United States, an American Indian tribe, Native American tribe, Alaska Native village, Indigenous tribe or Tribal nation may be any current or historical tribe, band, nation, or community of Native Americans in the United States. ... Many terms used to describe Indigenous peoples of the United States are contested but have legal definitions that are not always understood by the general public." We have a variety of words (tribe, band, nation, community, people, ...) used variously across different articles and categories, sometimes in accordance with a US federal legal definition, sometimes in a different sense used by ethnologists or historians; sometimes meaning an ethnic group, sometimes a subcomponent of an ethnic group split out by geography, administration, or something else. Are you implying that Wikipedia article/category titles should always used words in the sense given to them by U.S. federal law? That is certainly not true in general; it may be the consensus for WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America but I have not seen evidence of that yet. jnestorius( talk) 13:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support for simiplicity's sake, although Category:Mojave would be even better. "tribe" lowercased isn't a problem, so not enthusiastic about massive renaming of all Foo tribe categories. Yuchitown ( talk) 23:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments in general would be appreciated, but in particular input on whether this should be a {{ category disambiguation}} and the precise new name – if it is to be renamed – whether the new name should be "Mohave" or "Mojave".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 04:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Languages with Linglist code

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. PepperBeast (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a maintenance category. It's needed to help ensure that our language articles are reliably sourced. — kwami ( talk) 19:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • You just turned it into a maintenance category, but it is not clear that any sort of maintenance is required for articles in this category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep as a maintenance category, or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 04:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment It seems that "Linglist" is a standard parameter in Template:Infobox language that refers to an external site. E.g. Abipón language has linglist=axb.html, which apparently automatically links it to https://web.archive.org/web/20160808200116/http://multitree.org/codes/axb.html. So what seems to be going on is that there is some system which automatically links the Linglist parameter input to an archived url at multitree.org. If there is a bot actively archiving all those URLs to prevent linkrot, that seems to be maintenance, and a category could be helpful for that. But I have no expertise in this field. NLeeuw ( talk) 14:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Beauty goddesses

Nominator's rationale: Vague categorization based on "associated with". PepperBeast (talk) 13:58, 6 April 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) 04:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Goddesses like Lakshmi are linked with Beauty.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a rare instance in which association may be WP:DEFINING, as deities are defined by what humans believe about them. As examining what or how deities really are, or if they even exist, is beyond human capacity, human beliefs about what they are, and associations about what they do, need to be central in how we categorise them, as long as associations are not WP:UNDUE. NLeeuw ( talk) 14:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Tigers in Meitei culture

Nominator's rationale: WP:TRIVIALCAT PepperBeast (talk) 02:25, 6 April 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) 04:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep This seems to be about fictional or mythical tigers in Meitei culture, which would not exist if not for the Meitei culture, so this seems to be WP:DEFINING. NLeeuw ( talk) 19:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply


April 13

Category:NFL marching bands

Nominator's rationale: C2C. Trivialist ( talk) 23:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Sovietism

Nominator's rationale: As category statute itself states, "Articles relating to Sovietisms, the neologisms and cliches in the Russian language of the epoch of the Soviet Union." But this is perfectly covered by Category:Soviet phraseology, for the first. For the second, someone included into it the categories Neo-Sovietism‎ (3 C, 32 P) Stalinism‎ (16 C, 112 P)
whicxh have nothing to do with " neologisms and cliches in the Russian language". - Altenmann >talk 22:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, or possibly convert to a soft redirect. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Intersex lesbians

Nominator's rationale: Since its siblings ( Category:Non-binary lesbians and Category:Intersex gay men) were nominated for discussion, I bring it here for consensus. Merge or keep? -- MikutoH talk! 22:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Indian Paintbrush (company) films

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary disambiguation; extremely unlikely to be confused with the flower called the Indian paintbrush ( Castilleja). ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 17:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See request to reopen and relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 21:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • support unnecessary disambiguation. - Altenmann >talk 22:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural oppose, first the article should be renamed, then the category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    The nomination claims specifically that "Indian Paintbrush films" is unlikely to be confused with the flower, not that the company is the primary topic for Indian Paintbrush. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Convention is that categories follow disambiguation as used in article space (sometimes category names even contain disambiguation when the primary topic article doesn't). Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      Hence you're substantively opposing this nomination that tries to break from that convention, right? * Pppery * it has begun... 01:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Rocky (film series)

Nominator's rationale: C2D per Rocky (franchise). Charles Essie ( talk) 21:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in New Caledonia

Nominator's rationale: Broaden this category to include 19th-century churches of all denominations. There are only two pages in here, and 4 total in the entire Roman Catholic churches in New Caledonia Mason ( talk) 23:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for categorising under the dependent territory and the continent category trees. (Otherwise combine with the counterparts for other territoires d'outre-mer, collectivités d'outre-mer, pays d'outre-mer and collectivités sui generis.) 61.244.93.97 ( talk) 09:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Both the rename and the merge proposal are keeping the content in the tree of the the dependent territory, so this is not a reason to oppose. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • In that case either keep as it is, or, less preferably, keep a big tent category for Roman Catholic churches of all collectivités d'outre-mer along with the sole pays d'outre-mer and the collectivité sui generis. 61.244.93.97 ( talk) 09:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I countered your argument in my previous reply. Then it does not make sense to repeat your "keep" without any new argument. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    FYI to the closer this IP is probably WP:LTA/HKGW Mason ( talk) 02:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Justarandomamerican ( talk) Have a good day! 01:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Marcocapelle you didn't have a single word on the big-tent proposal on a category for all collectivités d'outre-mer, the pays d'outre-mer and the collectivité sui generis. What's your take? (...are keeping the content in the tree of the the dependent territory... And no I don't mean generally the tree under Category:Dependent territories but Category:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings by dependent territory specifically.) 61.244.93.97 ( talk) 08:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Films set in the Rajput Empire

Nominator's rationale: rename, the category contains films set in various Rajput kingdoms, e.g. the kingdom of Mewar. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Scholars of Greek language

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C. Uncles/aunts in Category:Linguists by language of study are all named Linguists of Fooian.
Copy of speedy discussion
NLeeuw ( talk) 10:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Purge and rename, there are some non-linguists e.g. Byzantinists and New Testament scholars in these categories, but that does not match with the clearly linguistic purpose of these categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. These categories have a different scope than those for linguists, and that scope is indicated by the title. If you change both the title and scope of the categories, you are essentially creating different categories, and doing so would eliminate valid categories that exist for a logical purpose. It would be better to create new categories under the proposed names, limiting inclusion to those entries that are actually linguists, than to convert existing categories into something that they were never intended to be, changing both the names and criteria for inclusion. The proposed change strikes me as saying, "this fire engine is red. It should be green. Also, it should be a pickup truck." I'm not great with analogies. P Aculeius ( talk) 13:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    What is, in your view, the difference between a scholar of language A and a linguist of language A? NLeeuw ( talk) 09:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    "Linguist" is typically used to mean one of two things in English: 1. An interpreter or translator; 2. Someone studying the technical aspects of language using the 'science' of linguistics—a fairly specific and limited field compared with all scholarship involving a language. At one time, the term was used more broadly, perhaps the source of confusion here. But presumably many scholars of Greek are neither linguists in the technical sense nor interpreters in the common sense. The proposal would narrow the scope of the category by excluding all scholars of a language who are not linguists. There seems to be value in being able to categorize scholars of a language irrespective of whether they are linguists, and likewise a category limited to linguists would be useful. The two categories would overlap, but the scholars category would be much broader. They should probably both exist, rather than one replacing the other. P Aculeius ( talk) 22:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Comment: just to clarify one thing my previous comment may not have done very well. A linguist, in the technical sense (as opposed to a translator) is a scholar of the technical aspects of language; i.e. (as our article on linguistics suggests) syntax, morphology, semantics, phonetics. Broader scholarship of a language might not focus on any of these aspects, but instead upon the literature and historic uses of a language, its distribution within a community, the social or cultural relationships between speakers of different dialects, or other languages—whether or not related, and other questions that are peripheral to modern linguistics as a science, or even "historical linguistics". Naturally there should be some overlap, especially as the fields and topics are not always sharply defined. But there are many scholars of language who, though notable in their fields, would not generally be considered linguists. Perhaps "linguists of Fooian" might be seen as a subcategory within the broader category, "scholars of Fooian". P Aculeius ( talk) 13:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Update Sibling Category:Grammarians of Arabic has just been Renamed Category:Linguists of Arabic, and sibling Category:Grammarians of Persian has just been Merged into Category:Linguists of Persian. Worth taking into account. NLeeuw ( talk) 02:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Not sure that has much bearing on scholars → linguists, since grammar is one of the technical aspects of language that might be included under the heading of "linguistics". However, I note that "grammarians" is a historic term, at least in classical languages, while "linguists" is a modern one, and would seem anachronistic applied to ancient Greek or Roman grammarians (who studied, taught, and wrote on a broader selection of topics than what we usually describe as "grammar" today). I'm not sure whether this would also apply to Arabic or Persian, although certainly ancient or medieval grammarians of these languages would probably not be described as "linguists" in literature on the subject. Modern grammarians of these languages could probably be called "linguists", since their scholarly focus would be narrower, and within the realm of modern linguistics. P Aculeius ( talk) 20:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The convention that was established a few years ago was that the "grammarians" categories could be kept for ancient languages. In this case, too, Category:Grammarians of Ancient Greek (which contains ancient people who spoke and wrote in ancient Greek and were important in shaping its grammar, if I understand correctly) will stay a subcategory of Category:Scholars of Ancient Greek, even if it is renamed Category:Linguists of Ancient Greek as proposed. When we say "linguists of Ancient Greek", we are indeed referring to (usually) modern scholars who study the Ancient Greek language in hindsight, rather than people living at the time who shaped it when it flourished in its ancient form. Perhaps @ Fayenatic london or @ Marcocapelle could explain further? NLeeuw ( talk) 03:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • @ P Aculeius and Nederlandse Leeuw: Category:Humanities academics has subcategories Category:Linguists and Category:Literary scholars. I suppose we can make the same distinction here. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Are all (or nearly all) of the members of these categories necessarily going to fit distinctly into one or the other of these groups, or in some cases belong to both of them? If so, then perhaps this suggests a solution. But if there are members who don't distinctly fit into either group, then the answer is probably to create the linguists category and populate it with a subgroup of scholars, without altering the existing categories. P Aculeius ( talk) 13:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Arab gangs

Nominator's rationale: rename, these are Lebanese mafia gangs. Arab is inaccurate, since many Lebanese people do not identify as Arab. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose, because I think this category should be kept so that Category:Arab gangs can be merged into it. AHI-3000 ( talk) 21:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Wait, what? You want Category:Arab gangs to merged into itself? NLeeuw ( talk) 07:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • support that the name is bad, but caveat: it should not only be renamed, but recategorized as well, because "Gangs" and "mafia" are different category trees. - Altenmann >talk 22:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy rename per WP:C2D. Main article is Lebanese mafia. NLeeuw ( talk) 19:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Companies that operate fighter jets

Nominator's rationale: Not sure whether this is an appropriate category, but if so it should align with Category:Fighter aircraft. – Fayenatic London 11:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Support I think it's okay to standardize this on "aircraft" instead of "jets". I'm unaware of any companies that currently operate fighters with propellers at a similar scale. Edward Sandstig ( talk) 12:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Studies of right-wing politics

Nominator's rationale: The contents are mainly biographies, with one podcast. I have added this new category into Category:Political science but don't think this is a helpful addition to the hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 11:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, the articles are mostly in the tree of Political scientists anyway and I don't think you can split political scientists neatly on the basis of whether they study right or left wing politics. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    So my rationale with this is that the study of right-wing politics actually is an explicit focus for some scholars, historians, and journalists. I can clarify the description of the category to ensure it is only meant to include those researchers who state that they study right-wing politics.
    Here are some examples:
    Bluetik ( talk) 06:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Also, I'm not sure if this matters, but it seems to be primarily sociologists, historians, and journalists, rather than career political scientists. Bluetik ( talk) 06:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Hmmm would it be appropriate to Rename this to Category:Researchers of right-wing politics? Because that makes more sense than "studies". NLeeuw ( talk) 07:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Paleontology portal

Nominator's rationale: These seem to effectively be a duplicate category. I'm bringing the category here in case I'm missing something obvious Mason ( talk) 01:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge target for the plural category?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 13:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Rajput era

Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic of the articles in the category. In fact the category is quite a hodgepodge of unrelated articles. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Volvo Open Cup

Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful category, as it contains only one article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment. It contains two pages now. If not kept, it should be merged to the relevant parent categories, rather than deleted. Mason ( talk) 21:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Women's firsts

Nominator's rationale: Created by a user who was indefinitely blocked for disruptive behavior. Векочел ( talk) 16:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural close. The nominator makes no valid argument for deletion. The editor in question was not evading a ban at the time their account was created; the fact that they were deemed disruptive seven months after they created the category is wholly irrelevant. ——Serial Number 54129 17:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep/Comment. most of these nominations are not tagged. Further, I don't think this is a good reason to nominate a category. These categories seem defining to me as many first female FOO are described as such in the lead. If not kept, the categories should be merged to the relevant women/female occupation categories. Mason ( talk) 21:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:First Nations drawing artists

Nominator's rationale: There is no "drawing artists" category. Mason ( talk) 15:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Would these categories be acceptable if there was a larger "drawing artists" category? We already have Category:Cartoonists, Category:Draughtsmen, and Category:Illustrators, plus artists in Category:Ballpoint pen art, and we don't yet have a category for artists who use charcoal, so there would be plenty to fill a larger umbrella category. ForsythiaJo ( talk) 15:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Honestly, I don't think that drawing artist is a defining category. Mason ( talk) 21:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • There is Ledger art but I am not sure if the articles would fit that. In fact most articles just say "artist", so the merge seems reasonable. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose merge. There are not good terms for fine artists who prominently draw (pen and ink, pencil, pastels, etc.). Illustrators, draftsmen, and graphic artists are sometimes used, but the phenomenon of Native American, First Nations, and especially Inuit artists who predominantly draw is well established. Yuchitown ( talk) 16:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:1950s in Ajmer

Nominator's rationale: merge, Ajmer State only existed for six years, so there is no need for diffusion by century or decade. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Support per nom. Mason ( talk) 21:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Districts of India by name

Nominator's rationale: delete, "by name" is not diffusing anything. In theory the category should be merged to Category:Districts of India but the content is already in that target's subcategories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

17th and 18th century in the Mughal Empire

more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge, mostly single-item categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Most content is categorized at decade level and that seems to suffice. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:German pies

Nominator's rationale: There is no concept of "pie" in Germany other than as something imported from Britain or the US, compare de:Pie. Calling these particular German Kuchen "pies" is WP:SYNTH original research. See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Germany#Zwetschgenkuchen. — Kusma ( talk) 13:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
There is a corresponding template, compare Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_13#Template:German_pies. — Kusma ( talk) 13:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, the three articles are already in Category:German cakes which is a better place for them. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; agree with Kusma that the concept of pie (as a separate category of food from cake) seems to have no meaning in German cuisine. Valereee ( talk) 14:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, Marco and Valereee. NLeeuw ( talk) 03:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Agreed, there is no such thing as pies in German cuisine, and all three of the entries listed here are cakes, not pies. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 20:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Battles involving the Pratihara Empire

Nominator's rationale: merge for now, currently just one article in the category, without objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Dual upmerge for now without prejudice per nom. NLeeuw ( talk) 03:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:1940s jazz album stubs

Nominator's rationale: The templates, {{ 1940s-jazz-album-stub}} and {{ 2020s-jazz-album-stub}}, were created a year ago without being proposed at WP:WSS/P. With very few articles to populate the categories, I notified the creator and upmerged the templates, negating the need for these two categories. The categories were recently recreated (without any proposal) but still only contain 2 and 5 articles. The templates should either be upmerged again or outright deleted due to the low number of candidates, but there is no need yet for the categories. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 07:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Battles involving Bengal

Nominator's rationale: merge, battles are diffused by (former) countries and Bengal was not a country. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Warsaw Veterinary Institute alumni

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Do we really need such a deep category tree for a single alumnus? Neither of the institutions have wikipedia pages Don State Agrarian University, Warsaw Veterinary Institute. Mason ( talk) 04:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:United States Sports Academy

Nominator's rationale: These categories only have the eponymous article in it and the logo of the college. In theory, upmerge for now, but in reality, delete because the page is already categorized. Mason ( talk) 04:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Older discussions

The above are up to 7 days old. For a list of discussions more than seven days old, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All old discussions.

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions&oldid=1202523150"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Speedy renaming and merging

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

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

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

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

(The four ~ will sign and datestamp the entry automatically.)
If the current name should be redirected rather than deleted, use: 

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

To note that human action is required, e.g. updating a template that populates the category, use: 

* NO BOTS [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

Remember to tag the category page with: {{ subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 07:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 282 open requests ( refresh).

Current requests

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

- RevelationDirect ( talk) 22:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Opposed requests

On hold pending other discussion

  • None currently

Moved to full discussion

PLEASE NOTE: I have moved all of the following Categories here pending adequate confirmation of their eligibility under C2C. I made a serious effort to look for that, but was unable to find such confirmation. There is a massive jumbled welter of Categories in this realm, with no prevailing pattern that I can discern. Anomalous+0 ( talk) 07:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

++

  • Oppose for now to all by ethnic or national origin nominations. 46.229.243.187 ( talk) 08:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Your opposition needs to have a reason. Mason ( talk) 13:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The existing wording sounds more natural and is easier to understand. 46.229.243.187 ( talk) 14:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Current discussions

Shortcut

April 20

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Will Haven

Nominator's rationale: This eponymous category used to have a couple articles for its band members which have been redirected. With only an albums subcategory now, this parent is no longer necessary. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 03:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply



April 19

Category:Sikh military

Nominator's rationale: Renaming (A) may be a good idea because of parents Category:Sikh Empire and Category:Military by former country, and siblings in Category:Military by former country. However, as @ Marcocapelle pointed out at Speedy, this requires more discussion because there is lots of content in the category that pre-dates the Sikh Empire. Moreover, Dharamyudh (Sikhism) (an article I wrote some years ago) is a religious concept, and does not belong solely to the Sikh Empire as a state. Alternately, we could also decide that this is just an WP:ARBITRARYCAT that should be deleted (B). Also, I think that the two recently created children Category:Military units and formations of the Sikhs and Category:Wars involving the Sikhs may be WP:ARBITRARYCATs, which will also have to be renamed (A) or deleted (B). Category:Sikh warriors may be a valid category (if it passes WP:EGRS), but not all those within the military of the Sikh Empire were necessarily adherents of Sikhism, so unless renamed & rescoped, that subcategory should be removed from this tree. Please indicate your preference, as both seem workable solutions to the current issues. NLeeuw ( talk) 14:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. This is a difficult one, because the Sikhs dominated (parts of) Punjab, but did not have a consistent political structure in that region during the two centuries that this category tree is about. They did have military though, to defend their territories. The period covers the Early Mughal–Sikh wars until the Afghan–Sikh wars and it is only during the latter wars that there was first a Sikh Confederacy and later a Sikh Empire. Deletion or purging would certainly be counter-productive because it would arbitrarily break the military history of the region. At most diffuse by different periods. An alternative in a completely different direction is renaming to Category:Sikh military (1621–1849). Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    I really don't think we should be categorising military history by religious denomination. That's kinda like creating Category:Anabaptist military and then throwing Münster rebellion and Anabaptist riot in there, as if those were carried out by the Armed Forces of the same "state". They weren't.
    We could split up by state, e.g. Category:Wars involving the Sikh Confederacy and Category:Wars involving the Sikh Empire. I would definitely support that. I could add that as Option C to the nom. NLeeuw ( talk) 20:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • The comparison with Anabaptists is unfair because the two articles you mentioned are situated at two different places and the Anabaptists held power in only one of them. Hypothetically, if they would have maintained longer in Münster, and if there they would have been called "the Anabaptists" by historians as belligerant in wars, then by all means Category:Anabaptist military would have been a valid category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:People's peers

Nominator's rationale: The term " people's peers" is chiefly informal, while the new title is unambiguous as to its scope and resembles other similar category names, e.g. "Peers appointed by [monarch]". —  RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Biota of Tierra del Fuego

Nominator's rationale: Just delete for now without prejudice. It's a redundant layer and its only child is already in all the trees of this cat's parents. NLeeuw ( talk) 13:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Southern Cone countries

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. There is no universal definition of Southern Cone; Paraguay is sometimes included, sometimes excluded, and only some Federative units of Brazil are sometimes included, sometimes excluded, but never is Brazil as a whole included. Even if we take the strict definition of just Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, that's only three countries, and this category has no other navigational value. Its parent Category:Countries in South America by region only has this child, so that was a redundant layer anyway, and should be deleted as well. NLeeuw ( talk) 13:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, there are only 12 countries in South America so that does not require diffusion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Southern cone music

Nominator's rationale: Main article was deleted as WP:OR: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern cone music. The remainder may be upmerged to Category:Music of South America. NLeeuw ( talk) 13:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Haitian people of Mulatto descent

Nominator's rationale: rename per article Mulatto Haitians. It probably is a case of WP:C2D speedy renaming, but maybe there are objections. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Maratha Empire

Nominator's rationale: delete, isolated year categories. No need to merge, the articles are still in Category:1782 in India and Category:1792 in India, and already in Category:Treaties of the Maratha Empire. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Jewish history by region

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:20th-century Andorran people by occupation

Nominator's rationale: There's no need to have a by occupation category when there's only one occupation Mason ( talk) 00:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply


April 18

Category:Chicago television shows

Nominator's rationale: Current name is way too close to Category:Television shows set in Chicago and much too vague given its actual, very specific meaning, and needs to be changed. This suggestion is based on Category:Local television programming in the United States, and it's probably the best I can come up with, though alternate suggestions are very welcome. Similar issue exists for all of Television in Cleveland, Detroit, Minnesota, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and the San Francisco Bay Area, so this nomination could be expanded. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 21:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Support. I think I created this, it's hard to tell after a few name changes. The intent was to list shows made by local channels. The existing categories and subcategory support this. Fuddle ( talk) 01:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Flip-flop: I like this idea better. It's longer, but more precise. Fuddle ( talk) 21:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm not opposed to this, even if it's a bit of a mouthful. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 23:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Habitats Directive Species

Nominator's rationale: While "HD" is a proper noun, "HDS" is not. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not a defining characterstic. If kept, rename per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of ♡ | speak 19:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment @ Marcocapelle: "Species described in year" and "IUCN vulnerable species" categories are not defining characteristics, either, but those are widely used. How are those acceptable but this isn't? For the record, I oppose deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Shabbat observant businesses

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) Queen of ♡ | speak 21:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I think "Shabbat observant" is a compound adjective that should have a hyphen. 123.51.107.94 ( talk) 00:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of ♡ | speak 19:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per Marco Mason ( talk) 13:41, 19 April 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:Religious extremism

Nominator's rationale: rename per main article Religious fanaticism. This could perhaps be speedied, but let's see if there are objections after all. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Music of Extremadura

Nominator's rationale: 1 P, 0 C. Already in other parent. Upmerge for now without prejudice. NLeeuw ( talk) 16:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Bulgarian encyclopedias

Nominator's rationale: It is not useful to lump together works from or about Bulgaria with works in the Bulgarian language that could be about different topics. Some entries might remain in the original category if they are about encyclopedias from Bulgaria. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 12:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment That an encyclopedia was published in Bulgaria does not mean that the topic is Bulgaria. Encyclopedias tend to cover a wide variety of topics. Dimadick ( talk) 14:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • In practice it is very unlikely that an encyclopedia published in Bulgaria wouldn't be Bulgarian-language encyclopedia, so they would fall in the second split target. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    That's not what Dimadick said; he pointed out that country of publication and topic do not need to match, rather than that country of publication and language do not need to match.
    Incidentally, specialised English-language encyclopedias are published all over the world all the time. Within a few seconds I just found the Encyclopedia of Coastal Science (2005), published in Dordrecht, the Netherlands. Last I checked, English still isn't the dominant native language over here, but that doesn't stop anyone from publishing encyclopaedias in English on "Dutch" soil. ;) NLeeuw ( talk) 00:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Dutch encyclopedias

  • Option 1
  • Option 2
  • (both options):
Nominator's rationale for Option 1: Per the actual scope of the main article, List of Dutch encyclopedias, which I have just renamed List of encyclopedias in Dutch, because the scope as indicated by the definition in the opening sentence is 'Encyclopedias in the Dutch language', and includes several encyclopedias published in Belgium rather than the Netherlands. The connected Commonscat was already named c:Category:Encyclopedias in Dutch. The interwiki to frwiki was already fr:Liste d'encyclopédies en néerlandais, a redirect to fr:Liste d'encyclopédies par langue#Néerlandais, and to nlwiki already to nl:Encyclopedie#Nederlandstalige encyclopedieën. This also means we should Purge parents Category:Encyclopedias by country and Category:European encyclopedias, because the Dutch language is not necessarily limited by geography to Europe either (e.g. there is an nl:Encyclopedie van Suriname, published in 1977 in Suriname, two years after it became indepedent). Because I recently renamed the main article myself, speedy criterion C2D does not count, but as you can see, it has always been the main article's and category's scope. NLeeuw ( talk) 12:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Update 6 April 2024 and rationale for Option 2: Belarusian, Albanian, Bengali and Tamil language encyclopedias have been added to the nomination following their speedy renaming nomination by LaundryPizza03, and Marcocapelle's suggestion to go full, and my suggestion to centralise discussion over here. The rationale for Option 2 is that it conforms with most older naming conventions to name things Fooian-language things. By contrast, emerging new conventions (Option 1) favour Things in Fooian. We all agree the current categories should be renamed, but the question is which Option is preferable. For both options, it is proposed to Purge them out of the by country and by continent trees, because these encyclopedias are by language. NLeeuw ( talk) 16:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support, language is generally much more a defining characteristic of a book than the country where it is published. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    I agree. Country of publication could be defining, and it's okay that we've got a Category:Encyclopedias by country tree. But if we need to choose, I think language takes priority over country of publication. We could do both, but then we risk situations like Category:Latvian encyclopedias and Category:Latvian-language encyclopedias, which are technically distinct, but both contain the two same items in practice. Only for larger languages and countries like France versus the French language, it is evident to have separate category trees, especially if the latter has a subcategory like "Belgian encyclopedias in French" or something, showing that France and French don't always coincidence. NLeeuw ( talk) 12:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Courtesy ping @ Marcocapelle:, you might want to clarify or change your !vote based on the amended nomination and rationale. Thanks. NLeeuw ( talk) 16:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • I do not have a strong preference between option 1 and 2, both are an improvement versus current. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 12:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Support option 2. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 20:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Support option 2. Matches with Category:Mass media by language tree. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 23:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Estonian numismatists

Nominator's rationale: 1-member. Little potential to grow Estopedist1 ( talk) 11:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge for now without prejudice per nom. NLeeuw ( talk) 11:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Upmerge for now per nom. I've added the rest of the single person categories. @ Nederlandse Leeuw and Estopedist1: Mason ( talk) 12:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Smasongarrison I'm not sure if Estopedist would appreciate it that you changed their nomination. It makes sense, but I think it's better to ask the nominator to include other categories to their nomination than to do it yourself without their prior consent.
    If Estopedist agrees, however, I also favour upmerging the additional categories for now without prejudice. NLeeuw ( talk) 12:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Estopedist1 @ Smasongarrison @ Nederlandse Leeuw thanks very much for the work here, I was looking at these last night but then had to go to sleep! I've done a little more tidying:
    • Category:Czechoslovak numismatists is empty (with one moved to Czech
    • Category:New Zealand numsimatists is empty (the one classed as numismatist is really a coin designer, so moved to that category)
    • Category:Belarusian numismatists - I can't seem to locate the proposal for it?
    There are some more things I had in mind that I will try to get to, today Lajmmoore ( talk) 14:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment As stated, Category:New Zealand numismatists is empty. Liz Read! Talk! 16:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge for now, without objection to recreate any of these categories when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  •  Comment: by nominator. Excellent job, mates! Thanks for modifying my original nomination!-- Estopedist1 ( talk) 19:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Glad to know you didn't mind. Personally I usually don't appreciate it when other people change my nomination without asking, but not everyone is the same way. NLeeuw ( talk) 00:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  •  Comment: - Categories: Belarusian, Estonian, Lithuanian and Pakistani numismatist are no longer single person categories. Lajmmoore ( talk) 21:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • They have only two or three articles so they can still be merged. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    I think for the discipline it's useful for catgeories that reflect more than one article to be separate, and I believe the nominations were made prior to the addition of more people to the categories Lajmmoore ( talk) 09:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    These categories also show users which articles still need to be created in the English Wikipedia based on the categories in other language Wikipedias. For example, I was surprised by how many articles we are still missing for Estonian numistamists in enwp. Obliterating the categories won't help people with that.
    On a side note, I was also surprised by how few of the people in the same category in other language wps had properly filled out items in Wikidata that could be used to query numistamists from these places, even when they are in the properly titled categories in other wps. To me, this looks like a very good reason to get people together to expand and create articles on these people in enwp, filling out the categories, instead of deleting the categories. - Yupik ( talk) 07:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - Albanian, Algerian, Azerbaijani, Czechoslovak, Jordanian, Latvian, New Zealand Serbian, Slovak, Sri Lankan, but ...
  • Leave - Belarusian, Estonian, Lithuanian Lajmmoore ( talk) 11:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Leave... what? Leave out? Leave in? NLeeuw ( talk) 16:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment If you merge the Jordanian, Slovak, Czechoslovak, Belarusian, Algerian, and Albanian numismatists, you also need to put them into categories for their nationalities, like Category:Jordanian people or a subcategory. It would be wrong to take these people out of their nationality categories entirely. 123.51.107.94 ( talk) 23:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:18th-century American slave owners

Nominator's rationale: Do we really need to diffuse by century of ownership? I don't think that the category is helpful. I think diffusion by state would be more helpful. Mason ( talk) 03:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • It looks like the categories have been depopulated. Marcocapelle ( talk) 03:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    FWIW: @ MarcocapelleWhen I nominated the categories, there were zero pages in them, just the slave-trader categories. Mason ( talk) 22:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to Category:American slave owners. Redundant layers. NLeeuw ( talk) 05:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Opose Whyever delete it? It is always usefull to sort people by century, and the category American slave owners is too big, and need sub categories. Nothing prevents having both a category by state and a category by century; other categories of people do. Slaves have century categories, and nothing prevents having century categories for slave owners as well. They are always helpful when a reader need to find people by century, and do not prevent the creation of other categories, such as state categories.-- Aciram ( talk) 12:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    As the category creator,Aciram, are you planning on populating them? Mason ( talk) 22:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    If it's just 2 centuries, I strongly recommend against subdividing by centuries. There will be a lot of duplication without navigational advantage. Splitting by state seems doable and defining, however. NLeeuw ( talk) 20:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    I'm adding the newly-created parent categories, that are also not populated with pages, in a moment. @ Aciram@ Marcocapelle@ Nederlandse Leeuw Mason ( talk) 19:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    I don't think it's very helpful to start creating new empty categories with little navigational value in the middle of a CfD. That said, I'll emphasise that I favour upmerging for now without prejudice. If a newly created category can be properly filled with items and has demonstrable navigational value, there's nothing wrong with it. NLeeuw ( talk) 22:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as nominated. It is not helpful to sort by century.-- User:Namiba 00:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Diffusion by century is always useful in large categories. Dimadick ( talk) 14:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Not always. For example, we very intentionally don't have activists diffused by century or athletes by sport. Dimadick, are you planning on doing the diffusion? Because right now these categories are *very empty*. Mason ( talk) 13:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 20:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete/upmerge: Diffusing by country/state makes a lot more sense and would save from the overlap issue that NLeeuw mentioned. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 23:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms by Muslims

Nominator's rationale: This category feels WP:COATRACKy. There is no Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms by Christians, even though those are far more prevalent. Moreover, many of the incidents here were not even defined by the participation of Muslims so inclusion into the Islam and anti-Semitism article would not always be appropriate. User:Namiba 18:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I originally created that category, feeling that pogroms by Muslims were notable precisely because they were much less common than pogroms by (especially Russian or other Eastern European) Christians. -- GCarty ( talk) 07:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Understandable. But the effect might be that unnecessary emphasis is placed on Muslims as perpetrators in a way that is currently not done for Christians (or others) as perpetrators. NLeeuw ( talk) 01:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Perhaps rename to Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Middle East and North Africa, or something similar?
  • Meanwhile GCarty proposed another alternative which (if slightly modified) I would not oppose either. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. If not, delete. "By Muslims" is simply unacceptable in a category name. Even when the majority of the perpetrators were Muslims, the name implies that their religion was a key factor in the process (rather than politics, economics, etc.). Usually this is either false or unknown. Would we name a cat about things done by Israel with "by Jews"? Zero talk 04:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    As mentioned above, I now think the this category (which I created originally) should be replaced with Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Middle East and/or Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms in North Africa. -- GCarty ( talk) 19:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
As the nominator, I suggest we merge with no objection to splitting off articles by continent for consistency's sake.-- User:Namiba 20:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge per nom and per discussion above. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 20:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim field personnel

Nominator's rationale: Merge categories per previous discussion here. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 12:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Pinging @ Eureka Lott and @ Natg 19 from the previous discussion on the matter. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 12:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:The Book of Boba Fett episodes

Nominator's rationale: All episodes were redirected so no content here. The child category will automatically be placed in the parent category if this is deleted. Gonnym ( talk) 12:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Swedish emigrants to Japan

Nominator's rationale: Dual speedy upmerge for now. These categories were deleted due to only having one person it in (and is still the case), which wasn't helpful for navigation. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_11#More_emigrants Mason ( talk) 11:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Tourism in Brazil by city

Nominator's rationale: These only contain subcats for tourist attractions, which are already categorised in Category:Tourist attractions in Brazil by city. – Fayenatic London 11:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom (or delete, as I am not sure if tourist attractions really belong in economy). Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

History of Ipê

Nominator's rationale: Only contains 1 article on a museum. – Fayenatic London 11:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Talian dialect

Nominator's rationale: These categories only contain one article, That article is about Talian dialect, which I don't think we would generally categorise as geography anyway. – Fayenatic London 10:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Tourism in Rio Grande do Sul

Nominator's rationale: Merge for now, only one or two pages in these sub-categories, and mostly it's the same regional article. – Fayenatic London 09:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply


April 17

Category:Legacy of Austria-Hungary

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure how this category is defining. These just seem to be long-lasting historical events Mason ( talk) 19:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Well, the average reader would associate the term "History of Austria-Hungary" with events that happened during Austria-Hungary. "Legacy of Austria-Hungary" would be things that are not just placed coterminously, but exist after it, and many of them to this day. As for being defining, they're all pretty clearly associated with Austria-Hungary in the article and in their sources, did you notice any particular ommissions to this? -- Joy ( talk) 19:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, it is a hogdepodge of articles that have very little in common with each other. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Marcocapelle yes, the thing they have in common with each other is that they're legacy of Austria-Hungary. Similar to many other categorizations. Why do you think this could not be useful to the average English reader researching this historical topic? -- Joy ( talk) 14:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom and WP:ARBITRARYCAT. What is and is not "legacy" is often arbitrary, and claims of legacy often fall in the realm of pseudohistory. Categories are not the best place to assess the validity of those claims. The Death and funeral of Otto von Habsburg is a great example: you can always claim it is the "legacy" of something; not just Austria-Hungary, but the entire Holy Roman Empire, and by extension the Roman Empire, and by extension Ancient Greece, and so on. (Sounds very WP:ASSOCIATEDWITHy to me). Categories would be a mess if we went that way. Strictly speaking, it happened in 2011, is therefore not part the History, which ended in 1918, so it should be Purged. NLeeuw ( talk) 15:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Arctic music

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Mostly irrelevant intersection of geography and music by country/ethnicity category trees. The overwhelming majority of the population in each of these countries lives outside the Arctic (that is, below the Arctic Circle of 66° 34' N. Iceland entirely lies below the Article Circle, except for the northernmost tip of the islet of Grímsey, which due to plate tectonics will also be completely south of the Circle within a few years. All inhabitants of Iceland live below it. Classifying all Category:Icelandic music as "Arctic music", because a stonethrow of diminishing beach is above an arbitrary circle, is ridiculous. Similar arguments can be made for all the rest of this category. No musician in Toronto is thinking: 'Oh, my music is sooo Arctic!' Anyway, you get the idea. NLeeuw ( talk) 18:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
 Comment: For the last part, is it like an equivalent of the “Do you live in igloos?” question? I do know there are Arctic tribes that had their own music and the Inuit are a good example of this. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd ( talk) 18:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Sure, but Inuit people can and do live south of the Arctic Circle as well, and that doesn't seem to affect their music in any way. People are mobile, they can live and migrate all around the world. Even within Nunavut and Greenland, where most Inuit live (see Inuit#Demographics), the majority of them live below the Arctic Circle of 66° 34' N, see List of communities in Nunavut. Last I checked, there is no Category:Temperate zone music either. That line on the map has no significance for music whatsoever. NLeeuw ( talk) 19:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Songs from animated series

Nominator's rationale: Per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 1#Category:Songs from television series, rename and purge. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 17:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Disney animation songs

Nominator's rationale: Only contains one redirect ( Der Fuehrer's Face (song)). Upmerge for now; unhelpful for navigation. I have purposefully left out the other two parent categories as merge targets: Der Fuehrer's Face (a cartoon that I would highly recommend you watch!) is not really a series (and thus the song does not belong in Category:Songs from animated series) and the song itself has no animation. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 17:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge for now without prejudice. Unhelpful at this time. Not sure it will never be helpful in the future, as the majority of Disney films are animated, and how a song is visualised may not be WP:DEFINING, but who knows. NLeeuw ( talk) 14:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Maharajas of Punjab, India

Nominator's rationale: rename and remove header: anachronistic category name, since Punjab, India did not exist yet. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:French people in New Caledonia

Nominator's rationale: New Caledonia is part of France, so I'm not convinced of the usefulness of this category (which contains only two pages). It does not seem helpful to navigation and is listed as part of the French expatriates category tree which seems inaccurate. AusLondonder ( talk) 13:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. The term "expatriate" does not apply when residing within the borders of the country of one's nationality. NLeeuw ( talk) 15:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Inbred animals

Nominator's rationale: Description is erroneous and most dog breeds are arguably inbred, this is a very subjective/specific list that ultimately has more to do with the perception of whoever added the category. Traumnovelle ( talk) 07:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Sydney New Year's Eve

Nominator's rationale: This category seems to be WP:NONDEFINING as it appears to just be a collection of locations in Sydney where fireworks are set off on New Year's Day. BaduFerreira ( talk) 01:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Crackers (food)

Nominator's rationale: Should Category:Crackers (food) be disambiguated if nothing exists at Category:Crackers? Not sure, so I'm nominating this for discussion. BaduFerreira ( talk) 00:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Democratic Labor Party (historical) members of the Parliament of Victoria

Nominator's rationale: There's multiple Democratic Labor Parties that can be considered historical. Although the disambiguation-less version is available and not occupied by any other categories, it seems appropriate to still include the Australian 1955? As to differentiate it from other Democratic Labor Parties in some fashion. Utopes ( talk / cont) 00:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Democratic Labor Party (historical) politicians

Nominator's rationale: The associated page with this category was recently moved, as there are multiple Democratic Labor Parties that can be described as "historical". This category and associated titles should be moved to a more fitting name, but I'm not sure whether there's a more preferable / succinct way of renaming to focus on this being the Australian, 1955 Democratic Labor Party. Utopes ( talk / cont) 00:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply


April 16

Category:Christian anti-Zionism

Nominator's rationale: delete, not as a matter of principle, but there are only two articles in it, one for which anti-Zionism is a POV judgment and the other is anti- Christian Zionism which is quite something different than Jewish Zionism. E.g. Christian Zionism asserts a parallel idea that the returnees ought to be encouraged to reject Judaism and adopt Christianity as a means of fulfilling biblical prophecies. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose. As long as Category:Christian Zionism exists, I don't see any reason to get rid of this category. AHI-3000 ( talk) 21:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • The reason for that is the existence of Christian Zionism as a separate movement with quite a different agenda than Zionism. They are not Zionists who happen to be Christians but rather adherents of Christian_Zionism. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:31, 4 April 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) 12:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Support per nom. Mason ( talk) 23:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of ♡ | speak 23:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Anti-Zionist Christians

Nominator's rationale: delete, the category contains people with widely diverging views, from antisemitism to advocy of Palestinian human rights, but generally it has very little to do with Christian theology. If applicable, articles are better off in Category:American Zionists etc. than in a specific Christian category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Support per nom. Mason ( talk) 21:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose. As long as Category:Christian Zionists exists, I don't see any reason to get rid of this category. AHI-3000 ( talk) 21:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • The reason for that is the existence of Christian Zionism as a separate movement with quite a different agenda than Zionism. They are not Zionists who happen to be Christians but rather adherents of Christian_Zionism. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:30, 4 April 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) 12:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of ♡ | speak 23:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Anti-mainlander sentiment in Hong Kong

Nominator's rationale: "Anti-mainlander sentiment" is not a defining characteristic of the articles that have been placed in this category, which are about subjects that may be more accurately or commonly described as reflecting a "pro-democracy", "localist", or "anti-Chinese Communist Party" sentiment. The category name is also biased in favour of a narrative promoted by the Chinese government – the Hong Kong pro-democracy movement was portrayed as "anti-mainlander" to help cement Chinese public opinion against Hong Kong democracy activists. Citobun ( talk) 23:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge to Category:Hong Kong democracy movements, the two categories seem to overlap. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Move the title to Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment in Hong Kong. There is a difference between the pro-democracy movement and the anti-mainlander sentiment. Among the latter, some simply antagonize the CCP, but others antagonize the mainlander's people. However, many Hong Kongers see it as better to change the title than delete it, as they distinguish their identity from the [mainland] Chinese people. ProKMT ( talk) 08:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the category article itself is a completely different matter. I am well aware of the oppression of CCP in Hong Kong, but at the same time, I am also aware of discrimination against the mainlander 'people'. Even before I edited it, many articles related to Hong Kong topics included Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment in Asia. ProKMT ( talk) 07:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • None of the articles fits well with the category title. As said, they are much more about the Hong Kong democracy movements. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Deaths due to hippopotamus attacks

Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic of the sole member. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete per nomination. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 00:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Orange Twin albums

Nominator's rationale: Orange Twin is a redirect to Orange Twin Records. These categories refer to the same record label. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 20:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Citizens of Indonesia through descent

Nominator's rationale: Per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Category:Citizens of Hungary through descent and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 17#Category:Citizens through descent, purge and merge to Category:People with acquired Indonesian citizenship. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:History of Austria-Hungary by topic

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

Nominator's rationale The category should be renamed to match the main article, List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 03:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • For sure "Native American tribes" is clearer than "tribes in the United States". However "unrecognized" is clearer than "self-identify" because tribes that are recognized also self-identify as such but that is obviously not in scope here. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Marcocapelle They aren't tribes though. They are organizations. To incorrectly call them "tribes" implies that they are indeed tribes but are merely waiting to be recognized. That's a POV. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 11:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Opposed -
    Dear Wikipedia Editors,
    I am writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed amendment that seeks to rename the category “Unrecognized tribes in the United States” to “Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes.” This change not only misrepresents our tribe but also undermines the historical and cultural recognition we have long held.
    The Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe of Wampanoag Nation has a well-documented history in Plymouth, Bourne, Massachusetts dating back thousands of years. We still have care and custody of our sacred places, burial grounds and our 1838 Meetinghouse, one of 3 built for the Tribe after the arrival of the colonizers. Our continuous presence and stewardship of these lands are recognized by historical records,deeds and treaties and so on. Additionally, our status is acknowledged by the two MA federal tribes, the Commission on Indian Affairs, Plymouth, Bourne and the Commonwealth which affirms our legitimacy beyond mere self-identification.
    The proposed renaming of the category on Wikipedia is not only inaccurate of many but also insulting. It disregards the deep cultural and ancestral ties we have to our land—ties that are integral to our identity and existence. Labeling us as an organization that self-identifies as a Native American tribe fails to recognize these ties and the acknowledgment we have received from authoritative entities.
    Mislabeling our tribe and any other legitimate Tribes in this manner can lead to the spread of hate, misinformation and further marginalization. It is crucial that platforms like Wikipedia, which serve as a global source of information, ensure the accuracy and integrity of the content they host.
    Tribes without legislative recognition often face significant administrative hurdles to gain federal recognition, and being labeled as "self-identified" can add to these challenges by casting doubt on our legitimacy.
    We face persistent disparagement on platforms like Wiki All the while we are still walking the path to recognition.
    The lack of recognition does not protect tribes from discrimination or persecution, and the term "self-identified" can perpetuate these issues by invalidating their identity.
    The term "self-identified" can be problematic for tribes like the Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe, especially in states like Massachusetts that lack a legislative recognition process, for several reasons: diminished sovereignty, historical erasure, legal implications, administrative challenges, discrimination and persecution.
    It's important for platforms like Wikipedia to use terminology that accurately reflects the status and history of tribes, especially those with longstanding recognition by other tribes and federal entities, rather than terms that can lead to misinterpretation and misrepresentation of their identity and rights. The Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe's situation exemplifies the need for careful consideration of how tribes are categorized and described in public and legal contexts.
    We urge you to consider the implications of this change and to seek a category name that respects and reflects the recognized status of tribes like the Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe. We are open to dialogue and collaboration to find a solution that honors the truth of our history and existence. Goldendragonfly77 ( talk) 09:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy rename per WP:C2D. NLeeuw ( talk) 09:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oppose. I think that this rename has major negative connotations that are unwarrented. Category:Unrecognized tribes does the same thing without the connotation. Mason ( talk) 18:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    What negative connotations? "Unrecognized tribes" doesn't work because these organizations are not actually tribes. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 11:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per Mason and Marcocapelle. While I understand the idea behind the "self-id" part, I think it should be on a case-by-case basis, rather than a blanket statement on all unrecognized groups. Self-ID also carries highly negative connotations, as Mason stated, and I don't think that warrants being a blanket statement. "Unrecognized" is also by far the most common term in literature, afaik, however I don't have any data to back that up. PersusjCP ( talk) 04:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    How is self-id a negative? It is simply describing that we don't have a citation to support their claims. I disagree with the statement that recognized tribes self-identify. The process to gain recognition is rigorous and recognized tribes, at least those federally recognized, have to document their continuous direct connection with the original tribes that were here prior to and during colonial contact. With no direct proof connecting them they are therefore self-identifying. They may very well share a heritage and be descendants but they cannot verify by showing a direct connection. That is only a negative because people on Wikipedia and even some of those who self-identify are trying to push that perspective to distort reality. At no point are we saying they are "pretendians". That would require reliable sources stating it through investigation. Self-identify does not equal "pretendian". -- ARose Wolf 13:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Saying someone "identifies" as something vs "being" something very much does have a negative connotation. It implies it is only in their head. There is even a famous transphobic joke (I identify as an attack helicopter/whatever) about how one's self-ID is meaningless. PersusjCP ( talk) 14:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    We cannot declare every one of these groups to be tribes; that's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Is there a term you see as more neutral than "identifies"? I don't mind if "self" is removed. Re: transphobia, a Native American tribe is a collective political identity, while a person's gender and sex is an individual identity; the two concepts are completely different from each other. Yuchitown ( talk) 15:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown reply
    It's wordy, but I would think along the lines of "claims descent/to be the successor from historical tribe/the aboriginal ___ people" or something like that. Maybe " Organizations that claim descent from Native American tribes." Since "descent"or being the "successor" is generally the more politically accurate idea to what modern day tribes are to historical entities. PersusjCP ( talk) 20:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    So sorry, but I believe that would be original research since not all the groups claim descent from Native American tribes, like the Una Nation of Mixed-Bloods from Eugene, Oregon, who see themselves as a completely new entity (that is somehow still Native American). Just as a reminder, the corresponding article is List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes, so this proposal isn't charting new territory but trying to bring the category inline with the article. Yuchitown ( talk) 20:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Ah that's a good point, I forgot about them... Okay, I support the current/future wording of "Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes," unless someone else can think of a more neutral, all-applicable wording. Maybe alternatively: get rid of the "self" in "self-identify," but I don't know if that makes it more neutral. Or like, "Orgainzations not recognized as Native American tribes," although that's kind of broad. Unfortunately I think because it is such a contentious topic that it is hard to be truly "neutral" in this. PersusjCP ( talk) 21:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    I can see how "self-identifying" could be regarded as problematic, as if they could be somehow "delusional" (although I must say this is the first time I've heard it having any negative connotation).
    But so can "unrecognised", right? Doesn't this imply that that these people are in fact tribes, but the U.S. government is just being 'stubborn, uncooperative and discriminatory' in 'refusing' to recognise them as such? The word "unrecognised" arguably carries a subtle WP:POV in it in favour of recognition, and arguably an implied criticism against the government that has so far not extended it to the applicants. NLeeuw ( talk) 00:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Support. All we can substantiate is that these organizations have collectively have identified as being Native American tribes. We cannot go further and do not have that authority; an outside authority having nothing to do with Wikipedia would have to make that distinction. Saying they identify does not mean none of the groups have Native American ancestry or that none of the groups are respected as successors of historical political tribes. But to collectively say all these groups are "tribes" is WP:OR and beyond our capacity or what we can support through published sources. Yuchitown ( talk) 15:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown reply
  • That does not solve the problem that recognized tribes also identify as being Native American tribes. The question is what distinguishes the two groups and the answer is that one group is recognized and the other group not. Not recognized is the key descriptor here. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    As mentioned above the article is already named List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. There are already List of federally recognized tribes in the contiguous United States, List of Alaska Native tribal entities, and State-recognized tribes in the United States, which are cross linked in the introduction of List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. Several federally recognized tribes are also state-recognized, but the general pattern is to go from broadest category into more specific classifications. Yuchitown ( talk) 20:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Yes but this does not address the objection. The objection is not about recognized, it is about unrecognized. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      What about "Organizations not recognized as Native American tribes" as I said in another thread here? The only problem is pretty much this applies to anything except federally-and-state recognized tribes, but maybe it is clear enough with context. PersusjCP ( talk) 21:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      That would include almost every organization on the planet. I’m not being facetious. “Identifying as Native American tribes” is a necessary component. Yuchitown ( talk) 02:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support - I've watched this discussion for a few days and tried to understand or see all the perspectives. I disagree with the negative connotation many are trying to place on self-identification and I think that term should defined somewhere on Wikipedia much like other terms have. The fact that it can be negative or potentially be negative shouldn't be considered because anything can be negative depending on who is defining it. What we should be looking at is the literal meaning of self-identification. These entities are the ultimate source of their identification. I know, some will say, The most notable ones did get recognized by reliable sources or government resolutions. But ultimately the source of their legitimacy when you dig into it is the subject entity itself. If they had proof of their connection to the original people they would have gotten federal recognition. So we are left with an entity that identifies itself as Native American. This may be true and it may not be true, it's still self-identification at its foundation. I support the change in title on that basis. Calling them "unrecognized tribes" places a legitimacy on these groups that cannot be verified. It is wholly non-neutral for Wikipedia to be the one conferring legitimacy. Many don't even call themselves tribes. -- ARose Wolf 12:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Just following up, "self-identified" is as broad and neutral as possible because a vast range of entities are in this category, including many with verified American Indian ancestry such as the Verona Band of Alameda County, Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, and the Yuchi (who are almost all enrolled in the Muscogee (Creek) Nation). Yuchitown ( talk) 16:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per what Mason and Marcocapelle said, which is that self-ID can have a highly negative connotation and "unrecognized" is the common term in literature. I've already encountered the issue of self-ID violating BLP in an article. If the category was changed as proposed, it's likely we'd have many more BLP issues in individual articles about people. This may seem like a minor word change, but there are strong negative connotations to saying someone who is Native "self identifies," because the inference is that they are Native in name only or falsely claiming to be Native. A change like this will impact countless articles covered by BLP because articles about Native people typically link to their tribe's article. -- SouthernNights ( talk) 19:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    There is no consensus in any discussion you can point to that says "self-identification" is considered a BLP violation. If I remove anything that I believe "can" be considered negative from every BLP on Wikipedia how long do you think it would take before I was community banned? Yet that's what you did based on your own personal opinion, not consensus. That is the worst obvious and most ridiculous example of POV pushing I have ever seen and quite frankly what I consider very much a misuse of the admin tools. It calls into question your neutrality, not on a personal level because we are all biased to some degree, but your willingness to use the tools you were granted to support your bias despite other good faith editors objecting. -- ARose Wolf 13:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    BLP guidelines state that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced — whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable — must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." In the case of the article I'm referring to, the recent edits that her tribe supposedly self-identifies absolutely qualified as such which is why I removed them. And I'm hardly the only one who sees it this way -- several editors raised concerns in this very category discussion about such descriptions being seen as negative. For more perspectives on this topic, check out this 2021 research paper published in the American Sociological Association journal (pdf download). Finally, your personal attacks here cross a definite line and violate Wikipedia policy. I strongly advise you do not continue with such attacks. SouthernNights ( talk) 17:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Her self-identification as Lipan Apache is not unsourced. We know that her non-profit organization has neither state nor federal recognition. That is a fact, not an opinion. Their identity as a Native group comes purely from their own self-identification, not from government recognition. You referring to "her tribe" is itself a POV and also factually untrue, because it isn't actually a tribe. It's a non-profit organization. There's nothing supposed about it. That's what it is. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 02:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    If my statements were attacks then so were yours when you attacked good faith editors by declaring us POV pushers. What does that make you pushing your personal point of view? -- ARose Wolf 12:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose There are a number of reasons why this conversation about Native American identity should not be renamed self-identify. Here are the top four in my mind:

1. The term self-identify as proposed is unmistakably negative, intentionally so. It’s negative in that it’s divisive, exclusionary, and demeaning. It attacks a significant part of Indian Country, like Lily Gladstone, by claiming they’re not real Native Americans, only pretending to be ones (of course there’s a page for that). No, it’s not racism, certainly not colorism. It’s crude chauvinism. It says that on one hand there are normal real Native Americans and on the other there are abnormal people who illegitimately and with no more foundation than their own volition identify as Native Americans, on no better basis than folks who identify as attack helicopters (credit Persus). Everybody hates attack helicopter wannabes. Native American, normal, positive. Self-identify Native American, abnormal, negative. The dots connecting the term as proposed to its pejorative roots couldn’t be drawn closer.

2. It effaces the concept of indigeneity. It says Native American is an identity established, not by self-identity, but by the US govt through a CDIB card. It says that Native Americans are creations not of thousands of years of independent existence and identity, but of the power that recently in their history came to occupy their land. Further, that occupying power can take back the identity only it, nobody and nothing else, can confer, as it has demonstrated in the past it can do.

3. The question is much bigger than this discussion setting can possibly do it justice. It’s not just a matter of slightly adjusting the name of a WP page. It’s a matter of possibly stumbling into a big philosophical and political decision due to a slight of hand; that self-identity is just a clearer way of saying not acknowledge by the US. No scholarly citations. No peer-reviewed article(s), it would never cut muster in that environment-- that's why there's none (I checked). Just the argument that, you know, it’s neater to say self-identify than non-recognized. And should it be done, a micro-minority POV has been imposed on a long-settled question of who decides who's Native American. From that point on, Native American identity means US citizenship and a CDIB. Born and raised in Paris and just found out you had a % grandparent with a CDIB, you're in. Born and raised in a historical Indigenous community in, say, Guatemala or Canada and migrated to an enclave of your community in Miami or LA where everybody still speaks your native language, you're out. Of course, it's a settled question that Indian Country is no bigger than the United States and Native American identity is entirely a Unitedstatean question. Not.

4. It goes against a vast and longstanding consensus on the concept of indigenous identity. This discussion has already been had over a much longer period, involving many many more participants, in a much more transparent and deliberative fashion. And a consensus was reached. Then instead of being shelved or secreted away, it was announced to the world and has been in place for years, known today as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UN). This widely publicized consensus speaks directly against the proposal to change the name of this page by declaring that indigenous identity is necessarily self-identify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsideh ( talk • contribs) 05:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC) There are more, but I'll stop here for now. Tsideh.:Tsideh Tsideh ( talk) 15:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC) — Tsideh ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Could you share where on Wikipedia this conversation took place? “It goes against a vast and longstanding consensus on the concept of indigenous identity”: I’ve never seen such a conversation on Wikipedia. Yuchitown ( talk) 14:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support I don't see any BLP violation or anything objectively negative about the term self-identify. I do see a big NPOV problem with the current category name as it uses the word "tribes" suggesting in Wikivoice that these are actual tribes in the context of indigenous American tribes. Doug Weller talk 11:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    I would say that is my biggest concern even more than the self-identity argument that seems to have developed. Some of these are organizations that have filed for 501C3 status with the same government they decry as holding them back from recognition. While some are heritage groups trying to bring awareness to Native American topics. Others may have legitimate claims. Still others are pretendian organizations seeking financial gain on the backs of Native Americans. The one thing that is common between them all is they cannot provide evidence which link them to the sovereign nations they claim to be part of with any continuity. Had they been able to do so they would have gained the political recognition from the US government to be able to speak for the respective nation they associate with. Without a doubt Wikipedia should not legitimize them in Wiki-voice as Native American/American Indian tribes, recognized or unrecognized, self-identified or otherwise and even if reliable sources that are not owned by legitimately recognized nations identify them as such. -- ARose Wolf 17:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong oppose. The proposed renaming would result in very awkward-sounding categories that thousands of readers and article subjects could find to be inaccurate, biased, or even offensive.
"Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes" is not wording that is typically used in academic literature.
Federal recognition is a controversial topic that should be discussed in the article text itself. It should not be forced into category names.
Category names should be based on serious non-biased anthropological and sociological research, and should not be based on decisions made by bureaucratic governments that may not always be fair.
I primarily focus on ethnic groups in the Middle East and Balkans, and categorizing thousands of individuals and entire clans as "self-identified" would be extremely offensive. For example, what if Serbia, Iran, or others do not officially recognize certain ethnic groups that Western anthropologists would certainly recognize as genuine ethnic or ethnoreligious groups? For example, if we were to label Yazidis or Alevis as self-identified minorities, that would be completely unencyclopedic, POV, and totally unsuitable for Wikipedia.
There are also many unrecognized ethnic groups in China, since the Chinese (PRC) government officially recognizes only 56 ethnic groups. Should we also categorize every single individual from those unrecognized minorities as "self-identified minorities"? Certainly not, as that would be very awkward, controversial, and out of line with what Wikipedia categories should really be all about.
Another good reason to oppose this renaming is the WP:CONCISE guideline. We shouldn't make category names overly long and complicated.
The same should apply to Native Americans, First Nations, and other indigenous peoples in North America.
I would also suggest taking a look at this book which discusses this issue in detail: Forgotten Tribes: Unrecognized Indians and the Federal Acknowledgment Process.
Equiyamnaya ( talk) 06:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
WP:NDNID was written by members of the Indigenous peoples of North America Wikiproject. It was thoughtfully constructed and thoroughly discussed to aid non-Native editors on Wikipedia gain an understanding of what being Native American is. Native American identity is not a matter of race or ethnicity. There is not a unified "Native American" ethnic identity. So the ethnic groups mentioned would not be an accurate comparison. This should not be a one-size-fits-all approach. -- ARose Wolf 13:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: To label all of the entities in the category tribes is definitely original research. The article was renamed to accurately and honestly include groups such as the Kaweah Indian Nation, Ani-Stohini/Unami, and Vinyard Indian Settlement as well as the Mississippi Choctaw Indian Federation, Brothertown Indians, and Verona Band of Alameda County (i.e. those with no demonstrated connection to historic Native American communities to those with well-documented connections). I've cited Miller's book, but it was also written in 2006; many of these groups have formed since then. This lengthy discussion will probably result in "No Consensus"; however, all of the editors who actively contribute to and improve Native American topics on Wikipedia have voted to "Support" the renaming. Yuchitown ( talk) 14:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • I haven't seen any opposition to using "Native American" instead of "in the United States" so we seem to have a minimal consensus. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Indian massacres

Nominator's rationale: merge/redirect, it looks like the scope of the two categories coincides. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom Mason ( talk) 17:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Reverse merge given that main article is List of Indian massacres in North America. I don't think that title is very helpful though, as the scope is both of and by "Indians". But that should be discussed at its talk page, not here. NLeeuw ( talk) 06:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment there have been massacres in India... so the category name is ambiguous. This category name should be salted, so that India cannot use this category name either. -- 65.92.247.66 ( talk) 05:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Agree that "Indian" is ambiguous, so I'd rather stick to merge as nominated rather than reverse merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcocapelle ( talk • contribs) 06:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Intersex transgender people

Nominator's rationale: Redundant, as all intersex people are LGBT. Editor has been warned about their alternative definition of LGBTQI+ User_talk:Bohemian_Baltimore#Category:Pansexual women#Aromanticism_and_Asexuality_are_the_A_of_LGBTQIA+_and_Intersex_is_the_I_and_is_inherently_an_LGBTQIA+_identity Mason ( talk) 17:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Like the other comments, I support this merger. These categories were erroneously created and this needs to be corrected. Historyday01 ( talk) 02:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support - As proposed (disclosure, I was the user that warned them about their misinformed interpretation of LGBTQIA+ at User_talk:Bohemian_Baltimore#Aromanticism_and_Asexuality_are_the_A_of_LGBTQIA+_and_Intersex_is_the_I_and_is_inherently_an_LGBTQIA+_identity). Raladic ( talk) 19:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support, but manually merge because articles may already be in a subcategory of a merge target. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support, with exception of "Intersex transgender men" and "Intersex transgender women," as those can be useful categories and don't have the same issue as the other proposed categories for deletion. ForsythiaJo ( talk) 21:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Merge the last three (LGBT intersex categories), keep the rest per ForsythiaJo. All intersex people are categorized as LGBT, but are all intersex men gay men or transgender men? The rationale doesn't apply to these categories. -- MikutoH talk! 23:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Question for the keeps, I don't think the 3x intersection is supportable in terms of category size or under EGRS. Can somebody point to some literature that supports these intersections? Mason ( talk) 00:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose I strongly oppose the erasure of asexual and intersex people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender and the subsequent eradication of any categories that mention LGBT intersex and asexual people. Being both LGBT and intersex or LGBT and asexual is a relevant and defining intersection of two oppressed groups, a minority within a minority. Likewise, there are many intersex people who identify as cis/hetero or straight and many asexuals who identify as cis/heteroromantic or straight. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 10:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    This is not erasure of people who are asexual and LGBTQIA. It is literally in the acronym already. Mason ( talk) 12:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Bohemian Baltimore: I totally agree. I hope we can gather more support and achieve consensus from a neutral point of view to oppose deletion of this of category. I left a message on your talk page for the same. — CrafterNova  [ TALK ]  [ CONT ] 16:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Smasongarrison Yes, it is erasure. And "LGBT" is the standard acronym used for articles and categories for Wikipedia. Not all asexual people are gay, lesbian, bi, or transgender. Gay asexual men exist. Lesbian asexual women exist. Biromantic asexuals exist. Transgender asexuals exist. Just as there are asexuals who identify as straight and/or hetero. There needs to be a way to describe and acknowledge the reality of asexuals who are LGB and/or T. A marginalized group within a marginalized group. As a compromise, I'd be fine with merging the LGBT categories but keeping the L, G, B, and T subcategories. Those are undoubtedly valid. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 22:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Volodimerovichi family

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Rurikids. "Volodimerovichi" is rarely used in comparison to "Rurikids", also does not follow the title of the main article. Mellk ( talk) 07:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This category is fine as it is. It is part of larger tree of princely clans and branches of Kievan Rus'. During several renamings and recategorisations last year, it was agreed to be cautious with categorising anyone as a "Rurikid", as the historicity of Rurik (as well as Sineus and Truvor) is disputed as a possibly a founding myth (similar to Remus and Romulus etc.), and there is no concept of a "Rurikid dynasty" in historical sources until the 16th century. However, Volodimer' (Vladimir, Volodymyr, Uladzemir) is a well-known historical figure, and his family / descendants are commonly known as "Volodimerovichi" in English-language reliable sources. Just like, for example, Category:Sviatoslavichi family and Category:Olgovichi family. It is preferable if there is a main article with the same name for these families, but so far, there are only redirects to the founder of each princely branch, e.g. Olgovichi redirects to Oleg I of Chernigov, Sviatoslavichi to Sviatoslav II of Kiev, and Volodimerovichi to Vladimir the Great. It's also much better for navigation not to lump all these people into one big category, but by commonly recognised princely branches. NLeeuw ( talk) 15:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    BTW if the main article title is important, shouldn't this be WP:C2D to Category:Family life and children of Vladimir I? (I wouldn't be in favour of that, but that would make better sense according to the rationale). NLeeuw ( talk) 15:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • As there is no article Volodimerovichi yet, it would be helpful to add a source in the header of the category page indicating that this is a common name among historians indeed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      Sounds like a good idea. NLeeuw ( talk) 06:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    There are no such branches at this stage, this comes later and we already have cats for those as they are widely accepted Rurikid branches. The term "Volodimerovichi" is used by a couple of historians instead of "Rurikids". Whether Rurik existed or not is irrelevant because the term "Rurikid" is widely used by later historians (similarly to the term "Kievan Rus" even though the state was not called as such then), hence this is POV to use an uncommon term that has not been widely accepted (yet). Mellk ( talk) 05:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Hmmm now I'm beginning to doubt. Christian Raffensperger seems to use it for all members of princely clans of Kievan Rus' in general, as a replacement "Riurikovichi", rather than just Volodimer' and his descendants. One wonders about the predecessors of Volodimer' (Yaropolk, Sviatoslav, Igor, Oleg and the alleged Riurik), who could hardly retro-actively be called "Volodimerovichi". I'll think about it some more, I'll get back to this issue. NLeeuw ( talk) 07:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    I have checked the literature more thoroughly, and I think it might have been a mistake to name this category in this way. Since the early 2010s, scholars including Raffensperger, Ostrowski, Halperin and others have been using "Volodimerovichi" as an alternative to "R(i)urikovichi" or "R(i)urikids" altogether, and not as a specific branch within the larger clan structure of Kievan Rus', like the later -ovichi families. Theoretically, "Volodimerovichi" could still be used that way (and sometimes it is), but this is not widespread in historiography yet.
    I do think it's useful to keep it as a separate category, but it's better to change the name according to our conventions. As both nom and I have suggested, it is useful to follow the main article title wherever possible. However, the current main article title is Family life and children of Vladimir I. The last part probably should be Vladimir the Great instead of Vladimir I, given the Vladimir the Great biography title. (I myself prefer Volodimer I of Kiev, which is common amongst modern scholars, but not (yet) the WP:COMMONNAME in all English-language literature). The first part is also unusual; there is no other enwiki article title with Family life and children of X. The common formula is Family of X. So per WP:TITLECON, it should be Family of Vladimir the Great.
    Therefore, I would like to propose the following:
    Defer decision in this CfR, and initiate Requested Move of Family life and children of Vladimir I to Family of Vladimir the Great.  Done. If the RM is approved, then
    Rename to Category:Family of Vladimir the Great. Does that seem like a good solution? NLeeuw ( talk) 14:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • In that case I would prefer merge as nominated. We could hypothetically create a "family of" for every grand prince but it would just overlap with Category:Rurikids. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      @ Marcocapelle Family life and children of Vladimir I is the only "Family of" main article of a (grand) prince of Kiev. So I'm not worried about having to create a "family of" category for every grand prince as long as there is no "family of" main article for every grand prince. Moreover, it arguably merits a category on account of his many wives and children, and subsequent princely branches directly and exclusively descended from him. That is quite uncommon in Kievan Rus' history. NLeeuw ( talk) 10:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      I have initiated the RM at Talk:Family life and children of Vladimir I#Requested move 10 April 2024. I'll ping the relevant users. NLeeuw ( talk) 11:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      So far everyone seems to be supporting the RM. We'll see what happens. NLeeuw ( talk) 06:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • The fact that the article exists, with this name, does not mean a category should also exist. I still think it is rather arbitrary to split off one particular "family" from Category:Rurikids. Ultimately Rurikids is the family. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Infrastructure

Nominator's rationale: merge, strongly overlapping scope. (Of course if there is consensus about this, then all subcategories need to be nominated as well.) Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Support. I think this is a really good idea. (However, if the decision ends with Keep, think we'd need to have a really really clear definition in the category description to support maintenance. ) Mason ( talk) 19:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
For what it's worth, I think this category should remain as is. :) KīlaueaGlows ( talk) 06:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Leaning oppose. Some of the subcategories of Category:Infrastructure would be seemingly out of place in Category:Buildings and structures. For instance Energy infrastructure‎, Category:Infrastructure of the Holocaust, Category:History of infrastructure, Category:Infrastructure investment and Category:IT infrastructure wouldn't make sense as subcategories of . Category:Buildings and structures. Pichpich ( talk) 21:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Ok, then for the top category it is too early to be merged. The subcategories by date and location are set categories, and items of infrastructure are always buildings or structures, so this objection does not apply to these subcategories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose I've been looking at some categories about canals and they are appropriately categorized under "infrastructure" rather than "buildings and structures". I think with their addition and that of other similar categories. "structure" would become so broad (anything that is built?) as to become almost meaningless. There might be some overlap here but I think that the solution might be to change "buildings and structures" to just "buildings" and leave "infrastructure" be. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Looking at more categories, it looks like some "infrastructure" categories are placed under the parent categories of "buildings and structures" which I think is more appropriate than merging the two. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:16th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Portuguese Macau

Nominator's rationale: sibling are all called Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Macau, even though those were also during the time of Portuguese Macau (1557–1999) . Category:19th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Macau‎ Category:20th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Macau Mason ( talk) 18:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Shouldn't they all be bishops of Macau? Per List of bishops of Macau. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Hmmmm, I've been thinking of them like a country of work category, like that's where the bishop is serving, as opposed to the dioses. If we changed it to "of" Macau, would that mean that all the bishops would also have to be in the parent category? Category:XXXX-century Roman Catholic bishops in China (or Asia)? My goal is to make all the categories consistent, and possibly avoid having a perpetual edit war over the parent country category. [1] Mason ( talk) 18:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Long story short, there are bishops appointed to dioceses elsewhere who served and were based in Macau (e.g. as administrators of the diocese, which covered an area large enough to be subdivided into hundreds of dioceses in the following centuries). These are bishops in Macau but not Bishops of Macau. 58.152.55.172 ( talk) 08:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Reverse rename. That was the Portuguese period, and there was a time when it was a província ultramarina. 219.77.182.250 ( talk) 13:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    What does that even mean? Mason ( talk) 00:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • It is obvious that it was Portuguese, that does not have to be added to the category name per se. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      • Then name the categories accordingly. 58.152.55.172 ( talk) 09:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
        • No, I am just saying that it is not necessary. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
          • Not necessary per se; but, as I read it, not something that cannot and shouldn't be done. 58.152.55.172 ( talk) 08:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Rename the 17th to 20th-century categories accordingly and make them along with the 16th-century category under the tree of Category:Portuguese Macau. 58.152.55.172 ( talk) 08:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    FYI, these are all the same IP and a well-known one at that WP:LTA/HKGW Mason ( talk) 13:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. Corresponding lists already exist. PepperBeast (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Strong Keep: It looks like the nominator has no understanding of the importance of Sahitya Akademi Awards in India. While List article may exist, it is important to have this category for the recipients. The award is presented every year to writers of the most outstanding books of literary merit published in any of the 22 languages separately. Nobel prize list articles also exists, as well as categories for recipients of each categories of Nobel prizes.
    -- Tinu Cherian - 11:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Recipients of Indian civil awards and decorations

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAWARD PepperBeast (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. The above awards aren't worth an exception from WP:OCAWARD, they are not comparable to a Nobel prize. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. We're not starting this again, are we? Most of these are clearly notable and defining. They include the Bharat Ratna, the highest civilian honour that can be awarded by India, and the Kaisar-i-Hind Medal, an extremely prestigious award given in British India. If they're not defining, then what on earth is? WP:OCAWARD certainly does not say that awards have to be comparable to a Nobel Prize; neither does it say that only international awards should be categorised, which is what such a suggestion implies. The deletion rationale is entirely spurious and ridiculously brief. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I find it very hard to believe that a category based on India's highest civilian honour is not appropriate as defining. If that is the argument then the entire category tree at Category:Order of the British Empire, which contains about a hundred subcategories and many thousands of articles should be added to this nomination. As should the substantial category tree at Category:Recipients of United States civil awards and decorations. By singling out one country this nomination makes no sense. AusLondonder ( talk) 15:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Temples (LDS Church) in Latin America

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT: all pages are already in child Category:Temples (LDS Church) in South America or its subcategories, or in sibling Category:Temples (LDS Church) in North America or its subcategories. Thus it has little navigational value and just adds category clutter to the articles. NLeeuw ( talk) 16:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Transport and the Mercosur

Nominator's rationale: Category:Transport and the Mercosur has 1 P, 0 C. Upmerge to grandparent Category:Mercosur for now without prejudice. Dual merge won't be necessary, I put the only article ( Vehicle registration plates of the Mercosur) in sibling Category:Road transport in South America already. The upmerging will empty Category:Economy of the Mercosur, which was already a redundant layer; it should also be upmerged for now without prejudice (merging instead of deletion for logging purposes). NLeeuw ( talk) 15:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Jewish nobility

Nominator's rationale: arbirtrary and irrelevant intersection by ethnicity. I found this category added to Yehudi Menuhin on my watchlist and I'm about to revert it because, while it's true that he was Jewish and that he was a Life peer, the intersection of these facts (especially the latter one) in a category seems more than a little bizarre and "non-defining", because he was by far best known as a violinist. There are probably many other examples just like this one. Graham87 ( talk) 09:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose, this is a well-populated category. AHI-3000 ( talk) 17:14, 8 April 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) 15:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Graham87 has a good point that lists allow for context that categories don't. But I am not in favour of listification either, as the net here has evidently been cast far too wide. E.g. someone like James Goldsmith (picked at random) has nothing to do with "nobility". NLeeuw ( talk) 15:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. It is another example of a non-useful, mostly meaningless category created by intersecting two unrelated traits. We don't have categories for Christian, Muslim, or Hindu nobility and we shouldn't have one for Jewish nobility either. 220.235.78.155 ( talk) 03:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and other users. It's a specific category that's already filled within the various subcategories for nobility per nationality. Furthermore, as mentioned above, there is no specific category for other major religions like Christians or Muslims. Clear Looking Glass ( talk) 10:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Canadian military personnel from Kelowna

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

Category:Lists of ambassadors to Northern Cyprus

Nominator's rationale: Category created just to hold one list. This would be fine if there were multiple lists to file here, but is not necessary for just one -- but given that Northern Cyprus is a disputed territory which is diplomatically recognized only by Turkey, it's impossible to file multiple lists here. The list is already in Category:Ambassadors of Turkey to Northern Cyprus, which is all that's needed in context -- but this category isn't necessary if it will only ever contain one list. Bearcat ( talk) 13:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Public high schools in Chicago suburbs

Nominator's rationale: Recreation at a new name of a category previously deleted last year per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 25#Category:Public high schools in suburbs of Chicago. Again, the same issue remains as last time: we categorize schools by the places that they're in, but we do not categorize schools by the places that the places they're in happen to be near. Bearcat ( talk) 13:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:LGBT-related music

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

Category:Songs against capitalism

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

Category:Songs against racism and xenophobia

Nominator's rationale: Generally our songs by topic categories are 'about' not 'against'. Ex. Category:Songs about poverty. See also Category:Songs about social issues. I suggest renaming this; the other category that may need similar treatment would be Category:Songs against capitalism (subcat to Category:Songs about consumerism, not Category:Songs against consumerism...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom, for consistency. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support renaming. J 1982 ( talk) 10:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral, as as I said with the songs about/against capitalism nomination, many of these songs have lyrics which are quite clearly critical of racism and/or xenophobia. With the songs about poverty or consumerism, those songs aren’t explicitly against the subject of said topics as much but are more about the topic itself and its effects. Velociraptor888 ( talk) 23:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)

Nominator's rationale: No need for disambiguation. User:Namiba 00:22, 8 April 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) 01:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:.io video games

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining trait. This simply indicates that the game in question has it's web hostname in the .io TLD. It is akin to having a category for ".com video games", ".org video games", etc. There is no connection between these games from a developer, publisher, or otherwise manner. -- ferret ( talk) 16:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will note the TfD was closed as delete, FWIW.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:53, 8 April 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) 01:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri in literature & education

Convert Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri in literature & education to article List of Recipients of the Padma Shri in literature and education
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. Should probably be listified. PepperBeast (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Lists already exist, starting with List of Padma Shri award recipients (1954–1959). Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as this awards are defining characteristic of recipients and they are frequently labelled as Padma Awardee in references. Another reason is lists of Padma awardees are not by their fields but by year. Each list contains all awardee of all field in a year. So field-wise categories help to find awardees in perticular field too like above literature and education.- Nizil ( talk) 11:54, 14 April 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) 01:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply


April 15

Category:Feminist historians

Nominator's rationale: merge to clarify that this is about women's history rather than a category of historians who happen to support feminism. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Wouldn't this one be more specific to Historians of feminism? Mason ( talk) 22:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I don't think these are the same scope. I'm leaning Keep. NLeeuw ( talk) 10:18, 11 April 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) 00:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Trademark attorneys

Nominator's rationale: Do we really need to make the distinction for what kind of intellectual property law they practice? (With the exception for patent attorneys). Mason ( talk) 20:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, the articles say they are specializing in intellectual property, broadly. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Canadian criminal lawyers

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between occupation, type of law, and nationality. We don't even have a parent category for Category:Criminal lawyers. Mason ( talk) 20:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Non-binary lesbians

Nominator's rationale: I don't really know what to do with this category (and the merge target). I think it needs a merge and rename. I think that these are supposed to be about non-binary people who identity as lesbian or gay. Mason ( talk) 21:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep the non-binary lesbians category name/title is very objective, right? It's in common use in the non-binary community. The Category:Non-binary gay people was named Category:Non-binary gay men (its naming was discussed at WT:GAY#Non-binary gay category). All biographies in these category were already in the Category:Lesbians and Category:People with non-binary gender identities, with help of WP:PetScan I populated these categories. -- MikutoH talk! 23:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure that these intersections meets the EGRS criteria for defining. The lesbian name may be objective, but I don't think it works in tandem with Non-binary gay people. I found the lesbian category nested within the gay category, which made the entire nested structure more confusing. Can you point to some literature on Non-binary gay people, because I haven't been able to find any? (Also the thread you linked to voices concerns about the category, including its creation being disruptive; so the thread isn't that clear cut.) Mason ( talk) 00:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
In this case, I would support a keep as well, provided that each category is defined enough so they can effectively be used. As such, I reject this nomination / merger. Historyday01 ( talk) 01:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep A simple Google search yields plenty of results for non-binary lesbians. It's clearly a common and defining identity. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 10:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete sure, these identities exist & are in use, but I don't see evidence they are defining for indiduvals. ( t · c) buidhe 00:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Our sexual orientation categories covering same-sex attraction are fully diffused by gender ( Category:Gay men, Category:Lesbians, and Category:Non-binary gay people). Getting rid of Category:Non-binary gay people would make it impossible for a nb person who does not identify as either a gay man or a lesbian be categorized as gay (in the broad, gender-neutral sense).-- Trystan ( talk) 02:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    That was part of my hesitation, as well as motivation for merging into a name that was more clearly gender neutral. Mason ( talk) 03:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:San Quentin State Prison inmates

Nominator's rationale: This is the naming convention for prison inmates. See Category:Inmates of Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary, Category:Inmates of ADX Florence, Category:Inmates of Sing Sing, Category:Inmates of the Marshalsea, Category:Inmates of Sighet prison, Category:Inmates of Pitești prison, etc. The only time the convention is "Category:X inmates" is where X is a ghetto, e.g. Category:Łódź Ghetto inmates. Dennis C. Abrams ( talk) 17:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nominator's rationale jengod ( talk) 23:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional characters by political orientation

Nominator's rationale: split, this category is confusing in its current implementation, it contains fictional anarchists, monarchists, nationalists and socialists on the one hand (by political orientation, not activists) and environmentalists, advocates of women's rights and pacifists on the other hand (activists, not political orientation). These are very different things. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose, I don't think this is necessary. And are you really sure that environmentalism and feminism not specific political ideologies/movements? AHI-3000 ( talk) 21:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • They are primarily social movements and certainly not a political orientation like socialism. In relationship to politics they have only one issue on their agenda and their target audience is the entire political spectrum, not one ideology. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Well if you take a look at Category:People by political orientation, Category:Feminists and Category:Pacifists are listed as subcategories. Anyways it's still not necessary to split up these categories in any way, they're not even too large. AHI-3000 ( talk) 17:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • It isn't a matter of size, it is a matter of plain wrong. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      Well that's just what you think. AHI-3000 ( talk) 17:36, 11 April 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) 16:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Pourashavas of Bangladesh

Nominator's rationale: Redundant: "Pourashava" means municipality in Bengali. Bolideleoi ( talk) 14:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Students of Ziaur Rahman Azmi

Nominator's rationale: Small category, fails WP:OCASSOC -- wooden superman 13:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom, and "students" categories are used for people who are only notable as a student. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Support per nom and marco. Mason ( talk) 03:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Ziaur Rahman Azmi

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEPON: Individual works by a person should not be included in an eponymous category but should instead be in a sub-category such as Category:Novels by Agatha Christie. -- wooden superman 07:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Disagree, there can be another category naming that such as Category:Hussain Ahmad Madani and Category:Books by Hussain Ahmad Madani. Bengali editor ( talk) 09:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The difference there is that Category:Hussain Ahmad Madani contains other articles which aren't books, thus warranting an WP:EPONCAT, this one doesn't. -- wooden superman 09:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://alhidaayah.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Transcript-IDTP-5.pdf

Category:American Jewish billionaires

Nominator's rationale: I haven't done much editing in categorization recently, so maybe the rules have changed, but this one sure reeks of a WP:OCEGRS problem to me. At the very least, there ought to be community consensus (rather than the actions of a single editor) that this intersection is sufficiently noteworthy and unbiased to merit inclusion; I do not believe it is, certainly not without context. Chubbles ( talk) 07:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Neo-Latin writers

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C: Per all child cats and per parent Category:Writers in Latin by period.
Copy of speedy discussion
The 5 speedy nominees were opposed by Jim Killock, see Copy of speedy discussion above. NLeeuw ( talk) 06:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I do not follow the objection. If this is about style then the categories should be named Category:Writers in foo-style Latin and the larger part of the proposal follows that format. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    "Category:Writers of late antiquity in Latin" is extremely clunky; I have no opinion about the rest. Furius ( talk) 20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • True, for consistency this should become Category:Writers in late antique Latin Category:Writers in Late Latin. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      So these are the style names: Old Latin; Classical Latin; Late Latin; Medieval Latin; Renaissance Latin; Neo-Latin.
      We have instead Category:Writers of late antiquity in Latin; Category:Renaissance writers in Latin; Category:Medieval writers in Latin. These remove or obscure the "styles" and make them in effect "period".
      The grammar objection is this. I write in Noun-Neo-Latin. I am a adjective-Neo-Latin noun-writer. I am not in Neo-Latin. Thus a writer is not "in" Neo-Latin. Thus writers cannot be "in" Neo-Latin. At least; it's not great English. I can imagine someone saying "A list of writers in English"; yet this isn't really correct, it should be a "A list of English writers", for the same reason (English here is an adjective, not a noun) (or "A list of writers writing in English", so that English can be used as a noun). see wiktionary:en:Latin#English regarding the noun and adjectival uses of Latin. Jim Killock (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      Note that Category:Latin-language writers of late antiquity is a child of Category:Writers of late antiquity. " late antiquity" refers to the time they lived in, not (directly) what kind of Latin they wrote in. Alt renaming to something like Writers in late antique Latin would change the scope.
      I must say I find the category fairly dubious to begin with: it has only 6 articles (which could easily be diffused to "by century" categories), and the rest are just Xth-century writers in Latin‎ from the 3rd to the 8th, all of which are already children of Category:Writers in Latin by century. The added value of such arbitrary duplication eludes me. "Late antiquity" isn't a very commonly used term anyway; the conventional timeframes are "Antiquity" and "Middle Ages". If we can't agree on how to properly phrase the catname, maybe we should just delete or upmerge it instead.
      it should be a "A list of English writers" This is the kind of convention we have been phasing out for years, because adjectives such as "English" (or "Latin", for that matter) are ambiguous due to their multiple meanings (language, country, nationality, ethnicity, geography/location, "style" (e.g. English landscape garden, which you could surprisingly create anywhere on Earth outside England as well)), which almost inevitably leads to confusion and miscategorisation. "Latin-language writers of late antiquity" is hardly a prettier phrase than "writers in Latin", which at least makes clear that the writers wrote in Latin, and that they were not ethnically speaking one of the Latins, or from the Latin League, or from Latin America, or a songwriter of Latin music songs etc. etc. NLeeuw ( talk) 16:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      I agree the categorisation is not done correctly overall. They conflate period and style. The category names are mostly unambiguiously about style. The socially predominate categorisation of Latin is by style, so that is what people will expect.
      I also agree with the principle of removing ambiguous phrases, I just don't agree with naming things with incorrect grammar. Writers are not in a noun-Language. People do something in a language; books and poems are written in a language. A different formulation is needed for "writers" to use the adjectival form avoiding "in". Jim Killock (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      What about Category:Books in Latin? Is that also grammatically incorrect? If not, why not?
      I see both catnames as merely an abbreviation of a longer phrase.
      Books in Latin = Books that were written in Latin
      Writers in Latin = Writers who wrote in Latin
      Makes sense to me. (Also per WP:CONCISE, or whatever the category equivalent of that is). NLeeuw ( talk) 15:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • It is always possible to read things differently than intended. "Neo-Latin writers" could be read, hypothetically, as writers who are Neo-Latin themselves. Likewise, reading "writers in Neo-Latin" as if the writers are in something themselves is equally bizarre. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Yemeni scientists by century

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There is only one century in here, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason ( talk) 04:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Politicians arrested in Yemen

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection of occupation and location of arrest. Mason ( talk) 04:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, we shouldn't have "arrested" categories anyway. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom and Marco. NLeeuw ( talk) 17:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Marching

Nominator's rationale: Purge or reparent. Are pride parades part of military traditions? There's already Category:Military marching and Category:Military marches. -- MikutoH talk! 02:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Electronic rock musicians

Nominator's rationale: Individual musicians and groups are not the same. Either populate this with articles of individual people or delete it as an innapropriate redirect without another good target. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 01:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Aphex Twin songs

Nominator's rationale: (Or maybe "Aphex Twin compositions".) Strictly speaking, songs contain singing. Aphex Twin tracks have no singing, or no singing in the traditional sense. For example, it is not really accurate to describe Avril 14, a piano instrumental, as a "song". Popcornfud ( talk) 17:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Lean oppose. Don't other categories have non-singing songs in them? I don't think it's helpful for navigation to make the distinction between songs that contain vocal tracks and those that do not. Mason ( talk) 20:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Just for clarity, I'm not proposing we create separate tracks for vocal and instrumental Aphex Twin tracks, just keeping a single category and renaming it. (There are very few, if any, Aphex Twins that could really be called "songs" in my view, and I also suspect the habit of calling non-vocal tracks "songs" tends to be an Americanism, but that's probably by the by.) Popcornfud ( talk) 21:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 12:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

& merge Category:Songs written by Aphex Twin to Category:Compositions by Aphex Twin per Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. Category:Songs written by Aphex Twin was created 15 January 2016‎; Category:Aphex Twin songs was created 21 October 2007‎, is therefore older, and therefore should be the merge target. This seems to be a comprehensive solution to all issues observed above. NLeeuw ( talk) 14:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on NL's proposal would be very much appreciated!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 22:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Love it! Mason ( talk) 00:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Should I ping the other participants to ask their opinion? They might not have read this, but I don't want to unnecessarily alert people. NLeeuw ( talk) 06:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • This final solution is surely in line with my earlier comments. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Marcocapelle Don't you mean 'certainly'? I often see you use the word 'surely' where I expect the word 'certainly'. As far as I know, in English, 'surely' is usually used in a question sentence to someone else, asking them to confirm something you would expect / like them to believe, or to say, or to do / to have done. 'Surely you locked the door, didn't you?' It's like the English equivalent of '...toch zeker wel...?' See the usage notes at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surely because [surely] connotes strong affirmation, it is used when the speaker or writer expects to be agreed with. Unlike sure it may be used neutrally—the reader or hearer may or may not agree, and it is often used when the writer is trying to persuade.
    • Surely you must admit that it was a good decision.
    In this case, it's like you're asking yourself whether you agree with your own earlier comments. 'Deze oplossing is toch zeker wel in lijn met mijn eerdere opmerkingen?' There is nobody who can answer that question except for you. NLeeuw ( talk) 06:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Then my "surely" should be read as "certainly". Happy to improve my English vocabulary. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      You're welcome! NLeeuw ( talk) 00:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: ....and I forgot to tag Category:Songs written by Aphex Twin last week. Oops. If there are no further comments by next week, we should be all set for implementing NL's proposal. Apologies for the delay/third relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 00:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Ah no worries HouseBlaster. :) NLeeuw ( talk) 17:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply


April 14

Category:Category:Overseas Chinese Presidents

Nominator's rationale: I think this means 'Politicians of Chinese descent who became President of a country', which seems like too narrow a category. Giant Snowman 15:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge this category into Category:Politicians of Chinese descent instead. AHI-3000 ( talk) 21:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 23:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:12th-century French novelists

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. The 12th-century novelists category is too small for diffusion by nationality (a.k.a. there's 2 people in the entire tree). Mason ( talk) 23:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Independant Native American countries

Nominator's rationale: Or plausibly, just a rename to correct the spelling error. Redundant at best with other categories, the notion of a "country" as we understand it seems dangerously nebulous and unattested in several member articles here. Remsense 诉 22:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Visual artists in late 20th-century Australia

Nominator's rationale: Can we make these categories more defining? I really don't know what to do with them. Perhaps split by art movement? Mason ( talk) 19:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Food gods

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT PepperBeast (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Support merging Category:Harvest deities to Category:Agricultural deities, but keep Category:Food deities instead of merging it, I think the Food gods/goddesses are related but not the exact same thing as Agricultural gods/goddesses. AHI-3000 ( talk) 21:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
In principle, I agree with you, but all the deities I checked that are currently categorized as food gods/goddesses/deities are actually harvest/agriculture gods. PepperBeast (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose merge for Food deities agree with @ AHI-3000, The Hindu goddess Annapurna (goddess) is the goddess of food, but is unrelated to Agriculture. Phosop is the goddess of rice, not agriculture in general. Mellona is the goddess of apples. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per this request at my talk page (previously closed as "merge").
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 16:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Canadian mIlitary personnel by city

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy renamed as a straightforward spelling error that didn't require debate. Bearcat ( talk) 15:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There is a typo in the category name, there should not be a capital I inside "military". ☆ Bri ( talk) 15:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per WP:C2A, this could have been listed at speedy. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy rename per WP:C2A. NLeeuw ( talk) 04:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • It's not necessary to take a straightforward spelling error like this to CFD for seven full days of discussion, and this could have been handled as a speedy. Dirty deed already done, dirt cheap. Bearcat ( talk) 15:49, 16 April 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:Film controversies in Spain

Nominator's rationale: All 4 items are articles about the films themselves. Follow-up to previous CfDs finding that the controversy should be the subject of a stand-alone article, and not just a (sub)section in the article about the film itself.
Precedents:
That also applies here. Should a sufficient number of stand-alone articles about film controversies in Spain be written, this category can be re-created without prejudice. NLeeuw ( talk) 14:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural oppose. I would note that there are 59 other sibling categories in Category:Film controversies by country, and all of them are populated almost entirely by "the films themselves" rather than "stand-alone" articles about the controversies as separate topics. So I'm unclear on why this would be different than all of the others — either they're all problematic for the same reasons and need to be collectively considered together, or this is as valid as the others, and there's no legitimate reason to single this one out for different treatment than the others.
    As well, most of the "precedents" listed above aren't particularly relevant here — Christmas, adventure and animation didn't get deleted on the grounds that it was fundamentally improper to categorize films as "controversial", they got deleted on the grounds that the intersection of controversy with genre wasn't defining. So I'm not at all wedded to the need for this, but those categories have nothing to do with it because they're not the same issue in the slightest. Bearcat ( talk) 15:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Fair points. In my defence, I didn't intend to single out Spain and spare all other countries in the world; I was just busy improving the Category:Culture of Spain tree, as you can see.
    Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, feel free to follow-up nominate all other categories populated only by articles about the films and not stand-alone articles on the controversies they created. I did not intend setting a higher standard for Spain; if we conclude this category is improper, or at least improperly populated at the moment, that should evidently apply to all children of Category:Film controversies by country. NLeeuw ( talk) 19:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Dutch cookies

Nominator's rationale: overcategorization, attempt to empty the categories cookie and Dutch cuisine. The Banner  talk 07:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Rajputana Agency

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content of the category (and purge the main article which still can be kept in the header). Reparent the first one under Category:Princely states of Rajasthan. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Mohave tribe

Nominator's rationle: The Mohave people belong to two tribes, the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe and the Colorado River Indian Tribes. The current name implies that the Mohave people belong to a single tribe. Rename for accuracy. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 20:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comments I guess the proposed move is an improvement, although the fact that people belong to two different federally recognized tribes does not prevent them belonging to a single (non federally recognized) tribe. It is best to forestall readers drawing the inference, even if it is an invalid inference, hence deleting "peopletribe" † from the name is an improvement. OTOH article Mohave is currently a dab, so the shorter name may be ambiguous. I ask whether Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America has (or ought to have) any standard/guideline for category (and corresponding article) names —— e.g. capitalization; legal name vs common name; and group taxonomy labels (e.g. "people" vs "nation" vs "tribe" vs nothing; always vs disambiguation vs never). From browsing, I infer that "Category:Foo people" is the standard for subcats of Category:Native American people by tribe, so Category:Mohave people is about individuals (plural "people") whereas Mohave people is about the group (singular "people"). (The fact that Category:Mohave people is a subcat of Category:Native American people by tribe also seems to imply, contra the nomination, that that the Mohave people are in some sense a tribe.) jnestorius( talk) 23:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • † corrected myself: current name is "Mohave tribe", not "Mohave people" jnestorius( talk) 22:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Regardless whether it is renamed or not, shouldn't we convert the category page to a disambiguation page just like in article space? Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Jnestorius Being a people is not the same as being a tribe. EG, the article for Cherokee refers to them as an Indigenous people belonging to three tribes; the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band, and the United Keetoowah Band. Mohave peoplehood doesn't imply being a single tribe. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 11:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
the article for Cherokee refers to them as an Indigenous people belonging to three tribes No, it says "three Cherokee tribes are federally recognized", not the same thing. It also says 'By the 19th century, White American settlers had classified the Cherokee of the Southeast as one of the "Five Civilized Tribes"'. Five Civilized Tribes says "The term Five Civilized Tribes was applied ... to the five major Native American nations in the Southeast". Category:Cherokee people is a direct subcat of Category:Native American people by tribe. Article Tribe (Native American) says "In the United States, an American Indian tribe, Native American tribe, Alaska Native village, Indigenous tribe or Tribal nation may be any current or historical tribe, band, nation, or community of Native Americans in the United States. ... Many terms used to describe Indigenous peoples of the United States are contested but have legal definitions that are not always understood by the general public." We have a variety of words (tribe, band, nation, community, people, ...) used variously across different articles and categories, sometimes in accordance with a US federal legal definition, sometimes in a different sense used by ethnologists or historians; sometimes meaning an ethnic group, sometimes a subcomponent of an ethnic group split out by geography, administration, or something else. Are you implying that Wikipedia article/category titles should always used words in the sense given to them by U.S. federal law? That is certainly not true in general; it may be the consensus for WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America but I have not seen evidence of that yet. jnestorius( talk) 13:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support for simiplicity's sake, although Category:Mojave would be even better. "tribe" lowercased isn't a problem, so not enthusiastic about massive renaming of all Foo tribe categories. Yuchitown ( talk) 23:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments in general would be appreciated, but in particular input on whether this should be a {{ category disambiguation}} and the precise new name – if it is to be renamed – whether the new name should be "Mohave" or "Mojave".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 04:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Languages with Linglist code

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. PepperBeast (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a maintenance category. It's needed to help ensure that our language articles are reliably sourced. — kwami ( talk) 19:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • You just turned it into a maintenance category, but it is not clear that any sort of maintenance is required for articles in this category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep as a maintenance category, or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 04:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment It seems that "Linglist" is a standard parameter in Template:Infobox language that refers to an external site. E.g. Abipón language has linglist=axb.html, which apparently automatically links it to https://web.archive.org/web/20160808200116/http://multitree.org/codes/axb.html. So what seems to be going on is that there is some system which automatically links the Linglist parameter input to an archived url at multitree.org. If there is a bot actively archiving all those URLs to prevent linkrot, that seems to be maintenance, and a category could be helpful for that. But I have no expertise in this field. NLeeuw ( talk) 14:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Beauty goddesses

Nominator's rationale: Vague categorization based on "associated with". PepperBeast (talk) 13:58, 6 April 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) 04:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Goddesses like Lakshmi are linked with Beauty.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a rare instance in which association may be WP:DEFINING, as deities are defined by what humans believe about them. As examining what or how deities really are, or if they even exist, is beyond human capacity, human beliefs about what they are, and associations about what they do, need to be central in how we categorise them, as long as associations are not WP:UNDUE. NLeeuw ( talk) 14:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Tigers in Meitei culture

Nominator's rationale: WP:TRIVIALCAT PepperBeast (talk) 02:25, 6 April 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) 04:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep This seems to be about fictional or mythical tigers in Meitei culture, which would not exist if not for the Meitei culture, so this seems to be WP:DEFINING. NLeeuw ( talk) 19:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply


April 13

Category:NFL marching bands

Nominator's rationale: C2C. Trivialist ( talk) 23:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Sovietism

Nominator's rationale: As category statute itself states, "Articles relating to Sovietisms, the neologisms and cliches in the Russian language of the epoch of the Soviet Union." But this is perfectly covered by Category:Soviet phraseology, for the first. For the second, someone included into it the categories Neo-Sovietism‎ (3 C, 32 P) Stalinism‎ (16 C, 112 P)
whicxh have nothing to do with " neologisms and cliches in the Russian language". - Altenmann >talk 22:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, or possibly convert to a soft redirect. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Intersex lesbians

Nominator's rationale: Since its siblings ( Category:Non-binary lesbians and Category:Intersex gay men) were nominated for discussion, I bring it here for consensus. Merge or keep? -- MikutoH talk! 22:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Indian Paintbrush (company) films

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary disambiguation; extremely unlikely to be confused with the flower called the Indian paintbrush ( Castilleja). ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 17:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See request to reopen and relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 21:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • support unnecessary disambiguation. - Altenmann >talk 22:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural oppose, first the article should be renamed, then the category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    The nomination claims specifically that "Indian Paintbrush films" is unlikely to be confused with the flower, not that the company is the primary topic for Indian Paintbrush. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Convention is that categories follow disambiguation as used in article space (sometimes category names even contain disambiguation when the primary topic article doesn't). Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      Hence you're substantively opposing this nomination that tries to break from that convention, right? * Pppery * it has begun... 01:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Rocky (film series)

Nominator's rationale: C2D per Rocky (franchise). Charles Essie ( talk) 21:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in New Caledonia

Nominator's rationale: Broaden this category to include 19th-century churches of all denominations. There are only two pages in here, and 4 total in the entire Roman Catholic churches in New Caledonia Mason ( talk) 23:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for categorising under the dependent territory and the continent category trees. (Otherwise combine with the counterparts for other territoires d'outre-mer, collectivités d'outre-mer, pays d'outre-mer and collectivités sui generis.) 61.244.93.97 ( talk) 09:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Both the rename and the merge proposal are keeping the content in the tree of the the dependent territory, so this is not a reason to oppose. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • In that case either keep as it is, or, less preferably, keep a big tent category for Roman Catholic churches of all collectivités d'outre-mer along with the sole pays d'outre-mer and the collectivité sui generis. 61.244.93.97 ( talk) 09:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I countered your argument in my previous reply. Then it does not make sense to repeat your "keep" without any new argument. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    FYI to the closer this IP is probably WP:LTA/HKGW Mason ( talk) 02:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Justarandomamerican ( talk) Have a good day! 01:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Marcocapelle you didn't have a single word on the big-tent proposal on a category for all collectivités d'outre-mer, the pays d'outre-mer and the collectivité sui generis. What's your take? (...are keeping the content in the tree of the the dependent territory... And no I don't mean generally the tree under Category:Dependent territories but Category:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings by dependent territory specifically.) 61.244.93.97 ( talk) 08:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Films set in the Rajput Empire

Nominator's rationale: rename, the category contains films set in various Rajput kingdoms, e.g. the kingdom of Mewar. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Scholars of Greek language

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C. Uncles/aunts in Category:Linguists by language of study are all named Linguists of Fooian.
Copy of speedy discussion
NLeeuw ( talk) 10:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Purge and rename, there are some non-linguists e.g. Byzantinists and New Testament scholars in these categories, but that does not match with the clearly linguistic purpose of these categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. These categories have a different scope than those for linguists, and that scope is indicated by the title. If you change both the title and scope of the categories, you are essentially creating different categories, and doing so would eliminate valid categories that exist for a logical purpose. It would be better to create new categories under the proposed names, limiting inclusion to those entries that are actually linguists, than to convert existing categories into something that they were never intended to be, changing both the names and criteria for inclusion. The proposed change strikes me as saying, "this fire engine is red. It should be green. Also, it should be a pickup truck." I'm not great with analogies. P Aculeius ( talk) 13:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    What is, in your view, the difference between a scholar of language A and a linguist of language A? NLeeuw ( talk) 09:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    "Linguist" is typically used to mean one of two things in English: 1. An interpreter or translator; 2. Someone studying the technical aspects of language using the 'science' of linguistics—a fairly specific and limited field compared with all scholarship involving a language. At one time, the term was used more broadly, perhaps the source of confusion here. But presumably many scholars of Greek are neither linguists in the technical sense nor interpreters in the common sense. The proposal would narrow the scope of the category by excluding all scholars of a language who are not linguists. There seems to be value in being able to categorize scholars of a language irrespective of whether they are linguists, and likewise a category limited to linguists would be useful. The two categories would overlap, but the scholars category would be much broader. They should probably both exist, rather than one replacing the other. P Aculeius ( talk) 22:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Comment: just to clarify one thing my previous comment may not have done very well. A linguist, in the technical sense (as opposed to a translator) is a scholar of the technical aspects of language; i.e. (as our article on linguistics suggests) syntax, morphology, semantics, phonetics. Broader scholarship of a language might not focus on any of these aspects, but instead upon the literature and historic uses of a language, its distribution within a community, the social or cultural relationships between speakers of different dialects, or other languages—whether or not related, and other questions that are peripheral to modern linguistics as a science, or even "historical linguistics". Naturally there should be some overlap, especially as the fields and topics are not always sharply defined. But there are many scholars of language who, though notable in their fields, would not generally be considered linguists. Perhaps "linguists of Fooian" might be seen as a subcategory within the broader category, "scholars of Fooian". P Aculeius ( talk) 13:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Update Sibling Category:Grammarians of Arabic has just been Renamed Category:Linguists of Arabic, and sibling Category:Grammarians of Persian has just been Merged into Category:Linguists of Persian. Worth taking into account. NLeeuw ( talk) 02:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Not sure that has much bearing on scholars → linguists, since grammar is one of the technical aspects of language that might be included under the heading of "linguistics". However, I note that "grammarians" is a historic term, at least in classical languages, while "linguists" is a modern one, and would seem anachronistic applied to ancient Greek or Roman grammarians (who studied, taught, and wrote on a broader selection of topics than what we usually describe as "grammar" today). I'm not sure whether this would also apply to Arabic or Persian, although certainly ancient or medieval grammarians of these languages would probably not be described as "linguists" in literature on the subject. Modern grammarians of these languages could probably be called "linguists", since their scholarly focus would be narrower, and within the realm of modern linguistics. P Aculeius ( talk) 20:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The convention that was established a few years ago was that the "grammarians" categories could be kept for ancient languages. In this case, too, Category:Grammarians of Ancient Greek (which contains ancient people who spoke and wrote in ancient Greek and were important in shaping its grammar, if I understand correctly) will stay a subcategory of Category:Scholars of Ancient Greek, even if it is renamed Category:Linguists of Ancient Greek as proposed. When we say "linguists of Ancient Greek", we are indeed referring to (usually) modern scholars who study the Ancient Greek language in hindsight, rather than people living at the time who shaped it when it flourished in its ancient form. Perhaps @ Fayenatic london or @ Marcocapelle could explain further? NLeeuw ( talk) 03:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • @ P Aculeius and Nederlandse Leeuw: Category:Humanities academics has subcategories Category:Linguists and Category:Literary scholars. I suppose we can make the same distinction here. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Are all (or nearly all) of the members of these categories necessarily going to fit distinctly into one or the other of these groups, or in some cases belong to both of them? If so, then perhaps this suggests a solution. But if there are members who don't distinctly fit into either group, then the answer is probably to create the linguists category and populate it with a subgroup of scholars, without altering the existing categories. P Aculeius ( talk) 13:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Arab gangs

Nominator's rationale: rename, these are Lebanese mafia gangs. Arab is inaccurate, since many Lebanese people do not identify as Arab. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose, because I think this category should be kept so that Category:Arab gangs can be merged into it. AHI-3000 ( talk) 21:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Wait, what? You want Category:Arab gangs to merged into itself? NLeeuw ( talk) 07:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • support that the name is bad, but caveat: it should not only be renamed, but recategorized as well, because "Gangs" and "mafia" are different category trees. - Altenmann >talk 22:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy rename per WP:C2D. Main article is Lebanese mafia. NLeeuw ( talk) 19:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Companies that operate fighter jets

Nominator's rationale: Not sure whether this is an appropriate category, but if so it should align with Category:Fighter aircraft. – Fayenatic London 11:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Support I think it's okay to standardize this on "aircraft" instead of "jets". I'm unaware of any companies that currently operate fighters with propellers at a similar scale. Edward Sandstig ( talk) 12:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Studies of right-wing politics

Nominator's rationale: The contents are mainly biographies, with one podcast. I have added this new category into Category:Political science but don't think this is a helpful addition to the hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 11:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, the articles are mostly in the tree of Political scientists anyway and I don't think you can split political scientists neatly on the basis of whether they study right or left wing politics. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    So my rationale with this is that the study of right-wing politics actually is an explicit focus for some scholars, historians, and journalists. I can clarify the description of the category to ensure it is only meant to include those researchers who state that they study right-wing politics.
    Here are some examples:
    Bluetik ( talk) 06:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Also, I'm not sure if this matters, but it seems to be primarily sociologists, historians, and journalists, rather than career political scientists. Bluetik ( talk) 06:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Hmmm would it be appropriate to Rename this to Category:Researchers of right-wing politics? Because that makes more sense than "studies". NLeeuw ( talk) 07:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Paleontology portal

Nominator's rationale: These seem to effectively be a duplicate category. I'm bringing the category here in case I'm missing something obvious Mason ( talk) 01:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge target for the plural category?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 13:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 19:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Rajput era

Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic of the articles in the category. In fact the category is quite a hodgepodge of unrelated articles. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Volvo Open Cup

Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful category, as it contains only one article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment. It contains two pages now. If not kept, it should be merged to the relevant parent categories, rather than deleted. Mason ( talk) 21:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Women's firsts

Nominator's rationale: Created by a user who was indefinitely blocked for disruptive behavior. Векочел ( talk) 16:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural close. The nominator makes no valid argument for deletion. The editor in question was not evading a ban at the time their account was created; the fact that they were deemed disruptive seven months after they created the category is wholly irrelevant. ——Serial Number 54129 17:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep/Comment. most of these nominations are not tagged. Further, I don't think this is a good reason to nominate a category. These categories seem defining to me as many first female FOO are described as such in the lead. If not kept, the categories should be merged to the relevant women/female occupation categories. Mason ( talk) 21:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:First Nations drawing artists

Nominator's rationale: There is no "drawing artists" category. Mason ( talk) 15:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Would these categories be acceptable if there was a larger "drawing artists" category? We already have Category:Cartoonists, Category:Draughtsmen, and Category:Illustrators, plus artists in Category:Ballpoint pen art, and we don't yet have a category for artists who use charcoal, so there would be plenty to fill a larger umbrella category. ForsythiaJo ( talk) 15:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Honestly, I don't think that drawing artist is a defining category. Mason ( talk) 21:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • There is Ledger art but I am not sure if the articles would fit that. In fact most articles just say "artist", so the merge seems reasonable. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose merge. There are not good terms for fine artists who prominently draw (pen and ink, pencil, pastels, etc.). Illustrators, draftsmen, and graphic artists are sometimes used, but the phenomenon of Native American, First Nations, and especially Inuit artists who predominantly draw is well established. Yuchitown ( talk) 16:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:1950s in Ajmer

Nominator's rationale: merge, Ajmer State only existed for six years, so there is no need for diffusion by century or decade. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Support per nom. Mason ( talk) 21:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Districts of India by name

Nominator's rationale: delete, "by name" is not diffusing anything. In theory the category should be merged to Category:Districts of India but the content is already in that target's subcategories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

17th and 18th century in the Mughal Empire

more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge, mostly single-item categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Most content is categorized at decade level and that seems to suffice. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:German pies

Nominator's rationale: There is no concept of "pie" in Germany other than as something imported from Britain or the US, compare de:Pie. Calling these particular German Kuchen "pies" is WP:SYNTH original research. See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Germany#Zwetschgenkuchen. — Kusma ( talk) 13:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
There is a corresponding template, compare Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_13#Template:German_pies. — Kusma ( talk) 13:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, the three articles are already in Category:German cakes which is a better place for them. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; agree with Kusma that the concept of pie (as a separate category of food from cake) seems to have no meaning in German cuisine. Valereee ( talk) 14:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, Marco and Valereee. NLeeuw ( talk) 03:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Agreed, there is no such thing as pies in German cuisine, and all three of the entries listed here are cakes, not pies. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 20:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Battles involving the Pratihara Empire

Nominator's rationale: merge for now, currently just one article in the category, without objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Dual upmerge for now without prejudice per nom. NLeeuw ( talk) 03:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:1940s jazz album stubs

Nominator's rationale: The templates, {{ 1940s-jazz-album-stub}} and {{ 2020s-jazz-album-stub}}, were created a year ago without being proposed at WP:WSS/P. With very few articles to populate the categories, I notified the creator and upmerged the templates, negating the need for these two categories. The categories were recently recreated (without any proposal) but still only contain 2 and 5 articles. The templates should either be upmerged again or outright deleted due to the low number of candidates, but there is no need yet for the categories. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 07:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Battles involving Bengal

Nominator's rationale: merge, battles are diffused by (former) countries and Bengal was not a country. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Warsaw Veterinary Institute alumni

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Do we really need such a deep category tree for a single alumnus? Neither of the institutions have wikipedia pages Don State Agrarian University, Warsaw Veterinary Institute. Mason ( talk) 04:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:United States Sports Academy

Nominator's rationale: These categories only have the eponymous article in it and the logo of the college. In theory, upmerge for now, but in reality, delete because the page is already categorized. Mason ( talk) 04:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Older discussions

The above are up to 7 days old. For a list of discussions more than seven days old, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All old discussions.

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions&oldid=1202523150"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE