Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 4
February 6 >

February 5

Category:Louisville Athletic Club football seasons

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Defunct sports clubs and teams in Louisville, Kentucky. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 22:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category. Let'srun ( talk) 22:44, 5 February 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:King Tornado football

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 12#Category:King Tornado football

Category:Fictional nephilims

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 22:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Made by a blocked user. This is a NARROWCAT with few articles that would fit. I suggest a merge to half-demons, but not angels, as they are not 100% angel beings. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 21:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, "nephilim" specifically is not a defining characteristic of these articles. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:08, 5 February 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:British currency traders

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 19:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category tree ( Category:Currency traders (13)) is too small to need diffusion by nationality. Merge for now. Mason ( talk) 21:30, 5 February 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:Distributaries of the Amazon River

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Amazon River and Category:Distributaries. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one article – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment. It should also be merged to Amazon River. Mason ( talk) 21:32, 5 February 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:Fictional offspring of rape

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Similar in concept to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_27#Category:Fictional_offspring_of_incestuous_relationships, which closed as delete. No real-world counterpart, which would violate WP:BLPCAT. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Support per nom Mason ( talk) 21:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nom, trivial characteristic that is not defining. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 21:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, if anything the rape is defining for the parents, not for the offspring. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Delete: Not a defining characteristic. Let'srun ( talk) 14:36, 6 February 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:Fictional omnicide perpetrators

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Made by a blocked user. No article called omnicide exists, it only redirects to the broad concept of human extinction. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 16:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge per nom. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:20, 5 February 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:Actors from London by locality

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge as nominated with the exception of Category:Actresses from Islington (district). One of the targets is a {{ category disambiguation}} ( Category:People from Islington), so I am WP:IARing and declaring there is consensus to merge to Category:People from Islington (district). (This only affects the articles about Angel Coulby and Naomie Harris.) (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 22:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Propose merging
Actors by locality (for deletion merging)
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OCLOCATION; see nomination for "Sportspeople by locality" for further rationale. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 14:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Updated target categories: I previous proposed deletion for the categories listed in the collapsed box. However, I have changed those to merge with their respective "Actors from *borough*" categories per discussion below. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 15:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Marcocapelle, pinging so you're aware of the change; similar to how I did "Sportspeople" since that was the main concern. If needed, we can deal with "boroughs" categories later. But the first step should be to get rid of the locality tree, which is not very helpful, and simplify navigation. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 15:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Fayenatic london, pinging for your opinion on this. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 21:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, as a trivial intersection. This is mostly just by place of birth while they acted in entirely different locations (though possibly still in London). Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    Soft oppose on the basis of application of OCLOCATION whih makes it clear that people i.e individual articles should not be categorised by their place of birth if that is non-defining. Therefore, it should be assessed on a case by case basis: if someone is not considered to be eligible for the Male actors from Kensington category because that cannot be verified beyond a birthplace which doesn't appear to be relevant to their overall life, then they shouldn't have the People from Kensington or Male actors from London category either! So if someone wants to go through every biography for every walk of life, every time period and every location and make that judgement, fair enough. Alternatively, I have noted that other Wikis don't use a Person by Geography category sphere at all, maybe that should be considered if it is not being used correctly and so of no value? Aside from either of those extremes, we'll just have to accept that life ain't perfect and many, many bios have been categorised by birthplace so some places, even relatively small parts of cities like London, have extremely large 'From' lists and so subcategories have been created in good faith using the occupation. Deleting entire trees because the People From concept has perhaps been misapplied (and will continue to be forever, let's face it, editors of all backgrounds like to put a hometown on articles if there appears to be one, and it would be very difficult to adequately 'police' its use due to the volume) is missing the point IMO.
    It should also be noted that as things stand, Actresses from London has 1,484 articles and Male actors from London has 1,605, so little would be gained by simply bloating them out by 238 and 245 respectively. However, it is true that most of these locality categories are very small and in some cases clearly unfinished e.g only 1 member in Category:Actresses from Romford, but there are 8 females - none of whom appear to be self-declaring as non-binary! - in Category:Actors from Romford (there is no Male Actors subcat there). A Category:Actors from London by borough‎ set has been created which these could be moved (it isn't gender-defined, but the locality categories shouldn't have been anyway as it makes them far too narrow), it might be easier to sort semi-manually using HotCat as otherwise I think it would need to be a two-step process i.e moving Male actors from Chelsea, London / Actresses from Chelsea, London‎ into Actors from Chelsea, London‎, then into Actors from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, but maybe it could just be done directly...? Crowsus ( talk) 23:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Crowsus, I would be in favor of keeping occupation boroughs for occupations that are quite big but having divisions by borough and occupation and THEN by neighborhoods/localities and occupation makes for a complicated tree. This whole tree (and that of sportspeople) is a good example of WP:OVERCAT. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 00:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    That's true of this tree in terms of NARROWCAT but not really for the sportspeople where even relatively small places have dozens of entries. However, I didn't create those down to the Locality level and don't in general except for large cities with hundreds of participants in one sport. I prefer to stick to the People from [small place], Sportspeople from [province or small region] and then Footballers etc from [large region] as long as the numbers are there to support those intersection, which there usually are for the larger countries and major sports in western Europe. You keep claiming the trees are confusing, but there is a logical pattern for London sportspeople with the 32 Boroughs - which have been in place for 60 years and are familiar to everyone with a passing interest in the city. Of course not everyone will know what locality falls within which borough (and unfortunately a few overlap) and that's why I added Sportspeople from London by locality as a simple container (and Footballers from London by locality a level down) so readers would be able to find the specific place alphabetically and not have to hunt in the boroughs. Difficult to imagine people can't work out that the Boroughs are subcategories of Greater London and the Localities are subcategories of the Boroughs, and equally hard to think that people looking in such areas wouldn't be aware that Footballers are a subcategory of Sportspeople. Whether 7000 London footballers are better split into 32 lists of ~200 in Boroughs versus a single enormous list split into 35 pages of 200 is debatable, I would say the Boroughs option is preferable as it indicates what part of the London megapolis that person of that specific occupation originates from, which is something readers want to know, or else things like newspapers wouldn't mention X grew up in Y etc as often as they do. The actors is more of a mess because, as I've pointed out, its unfinished and illogically divided into male and female on different levels, something I had nothing to do with. Cleary the preference is to move both Actors and Sportspeople up to Borough level at least - I'm happy to volunteer to do that semi-manually if it would be annoying to program a bot to do it accurately. Hopefully then it will be obvious that it is beneficial for navigation and information gathering purposes to divide the notable residents of this huge, important and thus extensively documented city into smaller, officially defined zones, each the size of a typical city in their own right, however 'trivial' that is deemed by some editors here, rather than into unwieldy lists containing thousands of entries across dozens of alphabetised pages for the benefit of... anyone? Can't think who. Crowsus ( talk) 14:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. An intersection of borough and occupation is trivial. I wonder if we will go down to the street level. If Category:Actors from London/ Category:Male actors from London/ Category:Actresses from London are large, it may be an indication that this intersection itself is probably not very defining. Intersection by theatre company (when that was a lifelong thing), genre, century may be more useful. Even though thousands of people (maybe tens of thousands) are primarily defined as a British actor, it will still be the most appropriate way to describe them in many cases. London is both, for centuries, a huge population centre and a capital of stage arts, it is hardly surprising there are many actors associated to it. Place Clichy ( talk) 20:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Place Clichy, you should take a look at the "Sportspeople by locality" categories just below this one. Its a similar situation. My suggestion is to simplify navigation (i.e. get rid of the locality categories) before dealing with the borough level categories. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 21:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    Why would we go down to street level? I think you should take the People from X itself to CfD. Not really defining for anyone is it under your interpretation? Crowsus ( talk) 14:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Crowsus, they clearly meant the intersection of occupation and locality, not the "People from X". Omnis Scientia ( talk) 21:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    Maybe you should let them confirm themself what they mean. "If Category:Actors from London/Category:Male actors from London/Category:Actresses from London are large, it may be an indication that this intersection itself is probably not very defining". How can that be interpreted any way other than "there are so many actors from London, it can't even be important / defining [so there's no reason even to have it as a category for them at all]." When the reality is, there is a huge collection of Actors from London for whom their background (their early experiences, their accent etc) is a defining characteristic, so we should be including that valid categorisation but looking at ways to break the huge list up in other ways, per WP:DIFFUSE. Crowsus ( talk) 21:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Triple merge from gendered categories, e.g. Category:Actresses from Canning Town to Category:People from Canning Town and Category:Actresses from London AND Category:Actors from the London Borough of Newham. WP:OCLOCATION says "Location may also be used as a way to diffuse a large category into subcategories", and these levels strike me as a useful balance. – Fayenatic London 22:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Qwerfjkl, I believe the majority is in favoring of merging per nom. This intersection - like the one for sportspeople - is the definition of overcategorization. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 20:35, 11 February 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:Assassinated politicians by political orientation

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 without prejudice against creating a separate tree for politicians assasinated specifically because of their political ideology. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Non defining intersection. Category description notes: "This category is for politicians who were assassinated and were conservatives", which doesn't not add any additional value. These people were not necessarily assassinated because of their political orientation. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_11#Category:Killings_of_politicians for similar arguments about non-defining intersections for deaths of politicians. Mason ( talk) 18:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Pinging folks from that previous discussion: @ Marcocapelle, @ Place Clichy, and @ Thinker78. Mason ( talk) 18:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. How are you saying that political parties and ideologies of politicians who were assassinated are not defining for said politicians? They are absolutely defining as you can see said information regularly included in the lead of the articles about them and many politicians dedicating their lives to their political beliefs. I think you are being excessively deletionist.
Per WP:NONDEF,

a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having

Political parties, political orientation, beliefs is something that reliable sources commonly and consistently define for politicians.

if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead section of an article (determined without regard to whether it is mentioned in the lead), it is probably not defining

As mentioned, politicians' articles regularly include the political orientation in the lead.
Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm saying that the intersection is not defining. Both elements by themselves are defining, but not the INTERSECTION. What is the added value of the intersection? If this category were for people who were assassinated because of their political values, that would be added value. Mason ( talk) 19:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The assassination of politicians of certain political orientations is absolutely defining by itself. For example in Latin America, politicians were persecuted and assassinated because of their political orientation. In the United States likewise, specially after the Civil War. Same around the world, many instances of political persecution deriving in assassination of politicians because of their political orientation. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Every time we seem to have the same conversation. What is the ADDED value beyond the politician being conservative and being assassinated? " You can't have it both ways, in your comment below you said that this category covers anyone who is "an assassinated conservative politician." The narrower category "Category:Politicians assassinated for being conservative" you say "gets to be more restrictive and subjective", but that's because there is added information that makes the category useful. At present, I see not added value to the category. Mason ( talk) 00:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support in principle, utterly trivial intersection, but the categories can just be deleted because the article are already in other categories by ideology. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral. I recon that politicians are more often than trivially assassinated for their political stance. However not all are: marital dispute, money or standing next to the intended target (such as Mortier, Cermak, Barthou) are common factors. I'm a bit ill-at-ease with catch-all terms such as conservative or anti-communist which may gather people with very different political positions killed for very different reasons. Maybe something like Politicians assassinated for being conservative may be better, or refine scope per era, party or conflict. Place Clichy ( talk) 10:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Place Clichy You have a point although naming the "Category:Politicians assassinated for being conservative" gets to be more restrictive and subjective. Say for example a conservative politician was assassinated while in office but there is not declared info on why they was [a] assassinated. Maybe the assassin killed them because being conservative, maybe not. In any case, what is a fact is there is an assassinated conservative politician. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Notes

  1. ^ Yes, I think "was" is better conjugation on singular they, avoiding unnecessary confussions that plural conjugation provides.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:14, 5 February 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:People of the Scientific Revolution

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. Per WP:NONDEF, WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, WP:OCASSOC. This is not helpful for navigation. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 19:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Convert Category:People of the Scientific Revolution to article People of the Scientific Revolution
Nominator's rationale: Extremely subjective Mason ( talk) 03:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF, and the idea that a revolution took place is very controversial. The existing Scientific Revolution article is fine, but we need no more than that. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, a good suggestion for an article but that has nothing to do with keeping the existing category. Since the Scientific Revolution topic exists (a period of changes long named and recognized) there is little reason to negate a category listing its main achievers. Randy Kryn ( talk) 08:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    Ok, but who counts as "main achievers"? Mason ( talk) 20:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as subjective. Article Scientific Revolution is sufficient to elaborate on the notion, including presenting major figures. Place Clichy ( talk) 22:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The delete arguments are poorly conceived. This is a well documented and clearly defined subject in RS. There's enough literature on this topic in major academic history journals and books published by university presses to support the article and the associated category. People in this cat should only be in it if published reliable sources state they were a part of the "Scientific Revolution". Those included in the cat should be evaluated on a case by case basis. 4meter4 ( talk) 05:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    This keep arguement is poorly conceived. It supports the existence of an article named Scientific Revolution, but not a Category:People of the Scientific Revolution. Not every topic is good for a category. Guidelines will be a useful point of reference, such as WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates and Keep people categories and topic categories separate. To elaborate on the arbitrary character:
    • Both the Scientific Revolution article and the category put emphasis on the stated borders: "from the 1543 publication of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) by Nicolaus Copernicus to the 1687 publication of Principia by Isaac Newton." These are of course arbitrary as, although major milestones, they put undue emphasis on what are just mere signs of a larger movement that takes more time and involves many people. The Big Day and Big Man approach is completely discarded in the study of either science or history. Among others, it discards:
      • Evolutions in other fields than astronomy, such as printing, the adoption of perspective in painting, the progress in anatomy and medicine ( Vesalius anyone?), religious reformation etc.
      • Other contemporary figures of Newton who played just as important a role, such as Pascal and Descartes
      • Science of other parts of the world such as the Muslim world and China
    • A good number of the members of the category were born after your arbitrary end date of 1687: d'Anville, Franklin, Lavoisier, Linnaeus
    • People in this category probably never considered themselves to be part of a single movement, unlike Renaissance humanists or Enlightenment philosophers, and even modern historiographic sources don't consider them that. That's primarily because science was not considered a separate field of knowledge (e.g. from philosophy) in this era.
    In short: the Scientific Revolution is an important topic for a topic article, but as far as individual scientific figures of the era are concerned, an exhaustive and neutral Category:17th-century scientists is probably better in many regards than an arbitrary collection of people you like. Place Clichy ( talk) 10:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Place Clichy (or maybe merge to article Scientific Revolution). It is a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, regardless of whether RSes commonly use the subjective term. This discussion has inspired me to write an essay, which can be found at User:HouseBlaster/"Objective" does not mean "documented in reliable sources". House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 22:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete It's combines WP:SUBJECTIVECAT (was there a scientific "revolution"?) with WP:OCASSOC (who counts as part of it?) No objection to a sourced list article (separate from CFD) where these nuances can be handled, but categories are binary in or out which doesn't lend itself to this topic. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per 4meter4's argument. Dimadick ( talk) 03:08, 6 February 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:Sportspeople from London by locality

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge to boroughs (even for cricketers where the borough categories don't exist). * Pppery * it has begun... 21:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Propose merging:
Sportspeople by locality
Footballers by locality
Cricketers by locality
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OCLOCATION. The "Sportspeople from London" categories covered by the city; these have recently been divided further by borough and then by neighborhoods within the borough and THEN by sports. Makes navigation quite confusing and complicated. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 11:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Updated target categories: I've changed target categories to their respective boroughs. There were a few for cricketers who didn't have borough targets so I suggest triple merge them to "Sportspeople from *borough*" and "Cricketers from Greater London" - @ Marcocapelle, is this fine? Omnis Scientia ( talk) 14:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Fayenatic london, for your opinion on this one. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 21:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Rather than merging to "Cricketers from Greater London", I suggest renaming Cricketers from Carshalton to Category:Cricketers from the London Borough of Sutton etc. – Fayenatic London 22:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Fayenatic london, and the nomination itself? It is clearly a case of WP:OCLOCATION but I thought you may know better about categorization of British people. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 22:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, as a trivial intersection. This is mostly just by place of birth while they played sports in entirely different locations. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oppose, the whole point of these is the parent categories such as People from Croydon and Footballers from Greater London would be far too large. There is nothing confusing at all about someone being categorised by the sport they play and the town they are from as long as the tree of each follows a logical path, which these do. Crowsus ( talk) 20:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    Tagging user:Grutness, user:Jevansen, user:Suonii180 and user:Namiba who are among those have also invested a great deal of time and effort in these trees and would probably be interested in this bid to blanket undo them conceptually (doubtless the result of this would be used as a precedent for other locations). Perhaps they can make more convincing arguments for retaining than me. Crowsus ( talk) 20:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    Lastly, theupmerge proposal is badly flawed as it should be that these nominated categories be upmerged first to the level above, e.g Sportspeople, Cricketers and Footballers from Kensington and Sportspeople, Cricketers and Footballers from Chelsea should all be upmerged to Sportspeople from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, Cricketers from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and, you've guessed it, Footballers from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Alternatively those Borough-level cats should also be nominated for upmerging, but that hasn't happened. Interesting to see what the reaction would be if this proposal was mirrored in equivalent American trees and so drew the attention of more editors in that part of the world: I see no reason why the London trees should go but the likes of Category:Sportspeople from Riverside County, California with its 3 location subcats and 5 sport subcats should stay (just to be clear, I have no problem with the American ones, they are valid and so are the English ones). Crowsus ( talk) 20:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oh, and a couple have been missed (Rugby union players from Kingston upon Thames, Rugby union players from Bromley) and there's a few disambigs in the upmerge to list. PS to give just 1 example in 1 sport from over 30 boroughs, upmerging the footballers from the London Borough of Lambeth and its localities would add 191 articles to Footballers from Greater London. Let's say the average is 150, so in what way does bloating that category by 4,500 aid navigation for anyone? Crowsus ( talk) 21:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Marcocapelle, would you be in favor of changing the target categories to "Footballers by borough" (and so on) in order to avoid making Category:Footballers from Greater London (and so on) too big? Omnis Scientia ( talk) 21:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    • I don't think that "too big" is a problem here, because sportspeople born in London (or a borough of it) have nothing in common with each other anyway. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
      I don't really understand that statement, can you explain? Crowsus ( talk) 23:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
      • Categories are primarily useful because they allow to find more information about a broader topic very easily. But people just born in a certain place is not the kind of topic that anyone would likely want to find more information about. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Rescope/upmerge to sportspeople, cricketers, etc by London borough. Locality isn't very helpful, but borough is an established tree for biographies in general so it would make sense to have sportspeople similarly divided. London's boroughs are each as big as a medium-sized city anyway. Grutness... wha? 02:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Grutness, I would be fine with changing target categories to boroughs. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 10:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/merge per nom. The fact that there are many sportspeople from London, among all places, does not mean it needs to be made into multiple irrelevant categories. Large categories are fine. Place Clichy ( talk) 21:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose original target to Greater London sport categories as separation into smaller categories can be very useful especially with sports that tend to have a large amount of players such as football. However I wouldn't be against them being merged into boroughs rather than locality as an alternative. Suonii180 ( talk) 22:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Suonii180, they are being merged to boroughs. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 18:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Suonii180, are you still opposed to the nomination? Just clarifying, the target categories are boroughs categories and not the Greater London categories. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 19:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/rename to intersections by borough and sport, e.g. rename Category:Cricketers from Wandsworth to Category:Cricketers from the London Borough of Wandsworth. WP:OCLOCATION says "Location may also be used as a way to diffuse a large category into subcategories", and this level strikes me as a useful balance. – Fayenatic London 22:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Qwerfjkl, I think majority is merge/rename as listed in the nomination. Only the creator of the categories is opposed while another oppose is against merging with a category that is not even the target category. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 20:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Omnis Scientia, believe me, few things make closing more difficult than the nominator (or indeed anyone else involved) asking me to close a discussion in a certain way. Qwerfjkl talk 19:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Qwerfjkl, sorry... was a bit annoyed at the when I posted this reply. Its been relisted twice now when, IMO, it should have been straight forward. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 20:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I understand where you're coming from, though. Sorry for trying to force it. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 20:12, 13 February 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:Sacred Heart High School (Ville Platte, Louisiana) alumni

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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT and WP:MFN
Sacred Heart High School (Ville Platte, Louisiana) is a small school in a small town and this category created in 2015 still only has 1 entry ( Danny Ardoin). Those two articles are directly linked so the category does not aid reader navigation and Mr. Ardoin is already in Category:People from Ville Platte, Louisiana so there's no need for a merge. I tried and failed to populate the category, but no objection to recreating it later if a few relevant biography articles ever get published. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 11:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge for now with no prejudice against recreation if the category can be appropriately populated. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 22:53, 12 February 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:Tulane Green Wave broadcasters

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:V and the spirit of WP:C1, an unpopulated category
There's not much here: two redirects which both point to List of New Orleans Pelicans broadcasters and that list article makes no mention of either Tulane University or their Green Wave team. Maybe the two announcers without articles also did work for a local college, but the current category doesn't aid reader navigation. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 11:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, a category with just redirects is not helpful for navigation at all. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Delete per nom. Let'srun ( talk) 19:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:North America–Pakistan relations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge/delete as nominated. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: bilateral relations are... bilateral. These are basically containers of national bilateral categories. This structure was set up just for Pakistan and frankly I don't think it should be developed for other countries. The handful of articles about regional cooperation can be moved to Category:Foreign relations of Pakistan. Place Clichy ( talk) 11:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge These relations are only with certain countries in the given regions, e.g. Category:Canada–Pakistan relations. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:17, 5 February 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:South Korea–Oceanian relations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge/delete as nominated. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one article: Korea–Pacific Islands Summit. It's a one-line article about a 2023 meeting, which can be categorized in the target category. Place Clichy ( talk) 10:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge There should be categories only for specific countries or international organizations, such as Fiji–South Korea relations. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:18, 5 February 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:Overseas Turkish organizations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories. Place Clichy ( talk) 08:05, 5 February 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:British scribes

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: These are medieval scribes; "British" is nonsensically anachronistic here. They are not referred to as "British" in academic literature (the equivalent word would be "Insular"). As an example, see this website. asilvering ( talk) 07:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I notice after nominating that there are actually two modern scribes in here. These shouldn't share a category; they are fundamentally not the same thing. Patricia Lovett in particular is best described as a calligrapher. -- asilvering ( talk) 07:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Alternative. I've created a child category which should solve the problem. Mason ( talk) 14:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Also I have restored the british writers parent category. Removing it is unhelpful as it isolates the category from the entire British people by occupation tree. Mason ( talk) 14:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Smasongarrison These people aren't writers, as a category. If it isolates the category from the British people by occupation tree to remove that category, the sensible solution is to add "British scribes" to "British people by occupation", not to miscategorize it. -- asilvering ( talk) 16:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
And yet, you reverted my change [1] and did not add the "sensible solution". I have added it, but my advice to you is to make categories more helpful rather than less helpful. Mason ( talk) 21:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Smasongarrison You can look at the time stamps on these and clearly see that the revert came before the comment here; I hadn't read your comment when I made the revert, and your edit summary did not make the reason for your objection clear. It would be very helpful if you would use pings when replying. -- asilvering ( talk) 00:57, 10 February 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:Korean false documents

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Document forgeries. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Also see Category:Japanese false documents, both created by User:Invokingvajras. I'm not sure what name is appropriate for this cat, or if it should even exist. I don't know if claiming "false" is appropriate on Wikipedia, it implies we're passing judgement on what's true and isn't. Open to suggestions. We should also probably take the same action for this as we should the one for the Japanese document category. toobigtokale ( talk) 06:03, 5 February 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:Victims in the United States

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. No prejudice against creating {{ disambiguation category}}s. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There 's only one "Victims in Foo" category, and it's not helpful for navigation because it combines people who were murdered with people who died in aviation accidents. If kept it needs to be a contain category, as being a victim isn't defining by itself. Mason ( talk) 05:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, or possibly turn the first and third into disambiguation pages, per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:46, 5 February 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:African victims of crime

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There's no need to have a category with only one category in it. Upmerge for now Mason ( talk) 05:34, 5 February 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:Breitbart London

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This distinction isn't helpful for navigation. There are only two people in this category. Mason ( talk) 05:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge for now, without objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:51, 5 February 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:Frederick Lions football players

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 13#Category:Frederick Lions football players

Category:Alaska Nanooks football

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category. Let'srun ( talk) 03:04, 5 February 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:Coroners of New York County, New York

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * it has begun... 03:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge this category. There's not need to diffuse by county yet. Mason ( talk) 17:27, 28 January 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) 02:31, 5 February 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:Local elections in Tanzania

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 13#Category:Local elections in Tanzania

Category:Tile sets of gigapixel images from Google Arts & Culture

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Gigapixel images from Google Arts & Culture. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This category only has one category in it, which isn't helpful for navigation. (Also the non-merge parent category Cateogry:Tile sets only has this category in it). Mason ( talk) 01:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_5&oldid=1208581097"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 4
February 6 >

February 5

Category:Louisville Athletic Club football seasons

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Defunct sports clubs and teams in Louisville, Kentucky. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 22:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category. Let'srun ( talk) 22:44, 5 February 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:King Tornado football

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 12#Category:King Tornado football

Category:Fictional nephilims

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 22:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Made by a blocked user. This is a NARROWCAT with few articles that would fit. I suggest a merge to half-demons, but not angels, as they are not 100% angel beings. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 21:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, "nephilim" specifically is not a defining characteristic of these articles. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:08, 5 February 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:British currency traders

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 19:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category tree ( Category:Currency traders (13)) is too small to need diffusion by nationality. Merge for now. Mason ( talk) 21:30, 5 February 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:Distributaries of the Amazon River

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Amazon River and Category:Distributaries. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one article – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment. It should also be merged to Amazon River. Mason ( talk) 21:32, 5 February 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:Fictional offspring of rape

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Similar in concept to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_27#Category:Fictional_offspring_of_incestuous_relationships, which closed as delete. No real-world counterpart, which would violate WP:BLPCAT. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Support per nom Mason ( talk) 21:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nom, trivial characteristic that is not defining. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 21:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, if anything the rape is defining for the parents, not for the offspring. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Delete: Not a defining characteristic. Let'srun ( talk) 14:36, 6 February 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:Fictional omnicide perpetrators

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Made by a blocked user. No article called omnicide exists, it only redirects to the broad concept of human extinction. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 16:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge per nom. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:20, 5 February 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:Actors from London by locality

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge as nominated with the exception of Category:Actresses from Islington (district). One of the targets is a {{ category disambiguation}} ( Category:People from Islington), so I am WP:IARing and declaring there is consensus to merge to Category:People from Islington (district). (This only affects the articles about Angel Coulby and Naomie Harris.) (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 22:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Propose merging
Actors by locality (for deletion merging)
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OCLOCATION; see nomination for "Sportspeople by locality" for further rationale. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 14:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Updated target categories: I previous proposed deletion for the categories listed in the collapsed box. However, I have changed those to merge with their respective "Actors from *borough*" categories per discussion below. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 15:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Marcocapelle, pinging so you're aware of the change; similar to how I did "Sportspeople" since that was the main concern. If needed, we can deal with "boroughs" categories later. But the first step should be to get rid of the locality tree, which is not very helpful, and simplify navigation. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 15:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Fayenatic london, pinging for your opinion on this. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 21:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, as a trivial intersection. This is mostly just by place of birth while they acted in entirely different locations (though possibly still in London). Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    Soft oppose on the basis of application of OCLOCATION whih makes it clear that people i.e individual articles should not be categorised by their place of birth if that is non-defining. Therefore, it should be assessed on a case by case basis: if someone is not considered to be eligible for the Male actors from Kensington category because that cannot be verified beyond a birthplace which doesn't appear to be relevant to their overall life, then they shouldn't have the People from Kensington or Male actors from London category either! So if someone wants to go through every biography for every walk of life, every time period and every location and make that judgement, fair enough. Alternatively, I have noted that other Wikis don't use a Person by Geography category sphere at all, maybe that should be considered if it is not being used correctly and so of no value? Aside from either of those extremes, we'll just have to accept that life ain't perfect and many, many bios have been categorised by birthplace so some places, even relatively small parts of cities like London, have extremely large 'From' lists and so subcategories have been created in good faith using the occupation. Deleting entire trees because the People From concept has perhaps been misapplied (and will continue to be forever, let's face it, editors of all backgrounds like to put a hometown on articles if there appears to be one, and it would be very difficult to adequately 'police' its use due to the volume) is missing the point IMO.
    It should also be noted that as things stand, Actresses from London has 1,484 articles and Male actors from London has 1,605, so little would be gained by simply bloating them out by 238 and 245 respectively. However, it is true that most of these locality categories are very small and in some cases clearly unfinished e.g only 1 member in Category:Actresses from Romford, but there are 8 females - none of whom appear to be self-declaring as non-binary! - in Category:Actors from Romford (there is no Male Actors subcat there). A Category:Actors from London by borough‎ set has been created which these could be moved (it isn't gender-defined, but the locality categories shouldn't have been anyway as it makes them far too narrow), it might be easier to sort semi-manually using HotCat as otherwise I think it would need to be a two-step process i.e moving Male actors from Chelsea, London / Actresses from Chelsea, London‎ into Actors from Chelsea, London‎, then into Actors from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, but maybe it could just be done directly...? Crowsus ( talk) 23:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Crowsus, I would be in favor of keeping occupation boroughs for occupations that are quite big but having divisions by borough and occupation and THEN by neighborhoods/localities and occupation makes for a complicated tree. This whole tree (and that of sportspeople) is a good example of WP:OVERCAT. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 00:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    That's true of this tree in terms of NARROWCAT but not really for the sportspeople where even relatively small places have dozens of entries. However, I didn't create those down to the Locality level and don't in general except for large cities with hundreds of participants in one sport. I prefer to stick to the People from [small place], Sportspeople from [province or small region] and then Footballers etc from [large region] as long as the numbers are there to support those intersection, which there usually are for the larger countries and major sports in western Europe. You keep claiming the trees are confusing, but there is a logical pattern for London sportspeople with the 32 Boroughs - which have been in place for 60 years and are familiar to everyone with a passing interest in the city. Of course not everyone will know what locality falls within which borough (and unfortunately a few overlap) and that's why I added Sportspeople from London by locality as a simple container (and Footballers from London by locality a level down) so readers would be able to find the specific place alphabetically and not have to hunt in the boroughs. Difficult to imagine people can't work out that the Boroughs are subcategories of Greater London and the Localities are subcategories of the Boroughs, and equally hard to think that people looking in such areas wouldn't be aware that Footballers are a subcategory of Sportspeople. Whether 7000 London footballers are better split into 32 lists of ~200 in Boroughs versus a single enormous list split into 35 pages of 200 is debatable, I would say the Boroughs option is preferable as it indicates what part of the London megapolis that person of that specific occupation originates from, which is something readers want to know, or else things like newspapers wouldn't mention X grew up in Y etc as often as they do. The actors is more of a mess because, as I've pointed out, its unfinished and illogically divided into male and female on different levels, something I had nothing to do with. Cleary the preference is to move both Actors and Sportspeople up to Borough level at least - I'm happy to volunteer to do that semi-manually if it would be annoying to program a bot to do it accurately. Hopefully then it will be obvious that it is beneficial for navigation and information gathering purposes to divide the notable residents of this huge, important and thus extensively documented city into smaller, officially defined zones, each the size of a typical city in their own right, however 'trivial' that is deemed by some editors here, rather than into unwieldy lists containing thousands of entries across dozens of alphabetised pages for the benefit of... anyone? Can't think who. Crowsus ( talk) 14:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. An intersection of borough and occupation is trivial. I wonder if we will go down to the street level. If Category:Actors from London/ Category:Male actors from London/ Category:Actresses from London are large, it may be an indication that this intersection itself is probably not very defining. Intersection by theatre company (when that was a lifelong thing), genre, century may be more useful. Even though thousands of people (maybe tens of thousands) are primarily defined as a British actor, it will still be the most appropriate way to describe them in many cases. London is both, for centuries, a huge population centre and a capital of stage arts, it is hardly surprising there are many actors associated to it. Place Clichy ( talk) 20:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Place Clichy, you should take a look at the "Sportspeople by locality" categories just below this one. Its a similar situation. My suggestion is to simplify navigation (i.e. get rid of the locality categories) before dealing with the borough level categories. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 21:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    Why would we go down to street level? I think you should take the People from X itself to CfD. Not really defining for anyone is it under your interpretation? Crowsus ( talk) 14:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Crowsus, they clearly meant the intersection of occupation and locality, not the "People from X". Omnis Scientia ( talk) 21:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    Maybe you should let them confirm themself what they mean. "If Category:Actors from London/Category:Male actors from London/Category:Actresses from London are large, it may be an indication that this intersection itself is probably not very defining". How can that be interpreted any way other than "there are so many actors from London, it can't even be important / defining [so there's no reason even to have it as a category for them at all]." When the reality is, there is a huge collection of Actors from London for whom their background (their early experiences, their accent etc) is a defining characteristic, so we should be including that valid categorisation but looking at ways to break the huge list up in other ways, per WP:DIFFUSE. Crowsus ( talk) 21:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Triple merge from gendered categories, e.g. Category:Actresses from Canning Town to Category:People from Canning Town and Category:Actresses from London AND Category:Actors from the London Borough of Newham. WP:OCLOCATION says "Location may also be used as a way to diffuse a large category into subcategories", and these levels strike me as a useful balance. – Fayenatic London 22:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 15:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Qwerfjkl, I believe the majority is in favoring of merging per nom. This intersection - like the one for sportspeople - is the definition of overcategorization. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 20:35, 11 February 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:Assassinated politicians by political orientation

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 without prejudice against creating a separate tree for politicians assasinated specifically because of their political ideology. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Non defining intersection. Category description notes: "This category is for politicians who were assassinated and were conservatives", which doesn't not add any additional value. These people were not necessarily assassinated because of their political orientation. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_11#Category:Killings_of_politicians for similar arguments about non-defining intersections for deaths of politicians. Mason ( talk) 18:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Pinging folks from that previous discussion: @ Marcocapelle, @ Place Clichy, and @ Thinker78. Mason ( talk) 18:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. How are you saying that political parties and ideologies of politicians who were assassinated are not defining for said politicians? They are absolutely defining as you can see said information regularly included in the lead of the articles about them and many politicians dedicating their lives to their political beliefs. I think you are being excessively deletionist.
Per WP:NONDEF,

a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having

Political parties, political orientation, beliefs is something that reliable sources commonly and consistently define for politicians.

if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead section of an article (determined without regard to whether it is mentioned in the lead), it is probably not defining

As mentioned, politicians' articles regularly include the political orientation in the lead.
Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm saying that the intersection is not defining. Both elements by themselves are defining, but not the INTERSECTION. What is the added value of the intersection? If this category were for people who were assassinated because of their political values, that would be added value. Mason ( talk) 19:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply
The assassination of politicians of certain political orientations is absolutely defining by itself. For example in Latin America, politicians were persecuted and assassinated because of their political orientation. In the United States likewise, specially after the Civil War. Same around the world, many instances of political persecution deriving in assassination of politicians because of their political orientation. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Every time we seem to have the same conversation. What is the ADDED value beyond the politician being conservative and being assassinated? " You can't have it both ways, in your comment below you said that this category covers anyone who is "an assassinated conservative politician." The narrower category "Category:Politicians assassinated for being conservative" you say "gets to be more restrictive and subjective", but that's because there is added information that makes the category useful. At present, I see not added value to the category. Mason ( talk) 00:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Support in principle, utterly trivial intersection, but the categories can just be deleted because the article are already in other categories by ideology. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral. I recon that politicians are more often than trivially assassinated for their political stance. However not all are: marital dispute, money or standing next to the intended target (such as Mortier, Cermak, Barthou) are common factors. I'm a bit ill-at-ease with catch-all terms such as conservative or anti-communist which may gather people with very different political positions killed for very different reasons. Maybe something like Politicians assassinated for being conservative may be better, or refine scope per era, party or conflict. Place Clichy ( talk) 10:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Place Clichy You have a point although naming the "Category:Politicians assassinated for being conservative" gets to be more restrictive and subjective. Say for example a conservative politician was assassinated while in office but there is not declared info on why they was [a] assassinated. Maybe the assassin killed them because being conservative, maybe not. In any case, what is a fact is there is an assassinated conservative politician. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Notes

  1. ^ Yes, I think "was" is better conjugation on singular they, avoiding unnecessary confussions that plural conjugation provides.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:14, 5 February 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:People of the Scientific Revolution

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. Per WP:NONDEF, WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, WP:OCASSOC. This is not helpful for navigation. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 19:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Convert Category:People of the Scientific Revolution to article People of the Scientific Revolution
Nominator's rationale: Extremely subjective Mason ( talk) 03:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF, and the idea that a revolution took place is very controversial. The existing Scientific Revolution article is fine, but we need no more than that. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, a good suggestion for an article but that has nothing to do with keeping the existing category. Since the Scientific Revolution topic exists (a period of changes long named and recognized) there is little reason to negate a category listing its main achievers. Randy Kryn ( talk) 08:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    Ok, but who counts as "main achievers"? Mason ( talk) 20:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as subjective. Article Scientific Revolution is sufficient to elaborate on the notion, including presenting major figures. Place Clichy ( talk) 22:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The delete arguments are poorly conceived. This is a well documented and clearly defined subject in RS. There's enough literature on this topic in major academic history journals and books published by university presses to support the article and the associated category. People in this cat should only be in it if published reliable sources state they were a part of the "Scientific Revolution". Those included in the cat should be evaluated on a case by case basis. 4meter4 ( talk) 05:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    This keep arguement is poorly conceived. It supports the existence of an article named Scientific Revolution, but not a Category:People of the Scientific Revolution. Not every topic is good for a category. Guidelines will be a useful point of reference, such as WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates and Keep people categories and topic categories separate. To elaborate on the arbitrary character:
    • Both the Scientific Revolution article and the category put emphasis on the stated borders: "from the 1543 publication of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) by Nicolaus Copernicus to the 1687 publication of Principia by Isaac Newton." These are of course arbitrary as, although major milestones, they put undue emphasis on what are just mere signs of a larger movement that takes more time and involves many people. The Big Day and Big Man approach is completely discarded in the study of either science or history. Among others, it discards:
      • Evolutions in other fields than astronomy, such as printing, the adoption of perspective in painting, the progress in anatomy and medicine ( Vesalius anyone?), religious reformation etc.
      • Other contemporary figures of Newton who played just as important a role, such as Pascal and Descartes
      • Science of other parts of the world such as the Muslim world and China
    • A good number of the members of the category were born after your arbitrary end date of 1687: d'Anville, Franklin, Lavoisier, Linnaeus
    • People in this category probably never considered themselves to be part of a single movement, unlike Renaissance humanists or Enlightenment philosophers, and even modern historiographic sources don't consider them that. That's primarily because science was not considered a separate field of knowledge (e.g. from philosophy) in this era.
    In short: the Scientific Revolution is an important topic for a topic article, but as far as individual scientific figures of the era are concerned, an exhaustive and neutral Category:17th-century scientists is probably better in many regards than an arbitrary collection of people you like. Place Clichy ( talk) 10:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Place Clichy (or maybe merge to article Scientific Revolution). It is a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, regardless of whether RSes commonly use the subjective term. This discussion has inspired me to write an essay, which can be found at User:HouseBlaster/"Objective" does not mean "documented in reliable sources". House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 22:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete It's combines WP:SUBJECTIVECAT (was there a scientific "revolution"?) with WP:OCASSOC (who counts as part of it?) No objection to a sourced list article (separate from CFD) where these nuances can be handled, but categories are binary in or out which doesn't lend itself to this topic. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per 4meter4's argument. Dimadick ( talk) 03:08, 6 February 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:Sportspeople from London by locality

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge to boroughs (even for cricketers where the borough categories don't exist). * Pppery * it has begun... 21:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Propose merging:
Sportspeople by locality
Footballers by locality
Cricketers by locality
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OCLOCATION. The "Sportspeople from London" categories covered by the city; these have recently been divided further by borough and then by neighborhoods within the borough and THEN by sports. Makes navigation quite confusing and complicated. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 11:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Updated target categories: I've changed target categories to their respective boroughs. There were a few for cricketers who didn't have borough targets so I suggest triple merge them to "Sportspeople from *borough*" and "Cricketers from Greater London" - @ Marcocapelle, is this fine? Omnis Scientia ( talk) 14:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Fayenatic london, for your opinion on this one. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 21:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Rather than merging to "Cricketers from Greater London", I suggest renaming Cricketers from Carshalton to Category:Cricketers from the London Borough of Sutton etc. – Fayenatic London 22:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Fayenatic london, and the nomination itself? It is clearly a case of WP:OCLOCATION but I thought you may know better about categorization of British people. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 22:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, as a trivial intersection. This is mostly just by place of birth while they played sports in entirely different locations. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oppose, the whole point of these is the parent categories such as People from Croydon and Footballers from Greater London would be far too large. There is nothing confusing at all about someone being categorised by the sport they play and the town they are from as long as the tree of each follows a logical path, which these do. Crowsus ( talk) 20:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    Tagging user:Grutness, user:Jevansen, user:Suonii180 and user:Namiba who are among those have also invested a great deal of time and effort in these trees and would probably be interested in this bid to blanket undo them conceptually (doubtless the result of this would be used as a precedent for other locations). Perhaps they can make more convincing arguments for retaining than me. Crowsus ( talk) 20:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    Lastly, theupmerge proposal is badly flawed as it should be that these nominated categories be upmerged first to the level above, e.g Sportspeople, Cricketers and Footballers from Kensington and Sportspeople, Cricketers and Footballers from Chelsea should all be upmerged to Sportspeople from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, Cricketers from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and, you've guessed it, Footballers from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Alternatively those Borough-level cats should also be nominated for upmerging, but that hasn't happened. Interesting to see what the reaction would be if this proposal was mirrored in equivalent American trees and so drew the attention of more editors in that part of the world: I see no reason why the London trees should go but the likes of Category:Sportspeople from Riverside County, California with its 3 location subcats and 5 sport subcats should stay (just to be clear, I have no problem with the American ones, they are valid and so are the English ones). Crowsus ( talk) 20:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oh, and a couple have been missed (Rugby union players from Kingston upon Thames, Rugby union players from Bromley) and there's a few disambigs in the upmerge to list. PS to give just 1 example in 1 sport from over 30 boroughs, upmerging the footballers from the London Borough of Lambeth and its localities would add 191 articles to Footballers from Greater London. Let's say the average is 150, so in what way does bloating that category by 4,500 aid navigation for anyone? Crowsus ( talk) 21:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Marcocapelle, would you be in favor of changing the target categories to "Footballers by borough" (and so on) in order to avoid making Category:Footballers from Greater London (and so on) too big? Omnis Scientia ( talk) 21:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    • I don't think that "too big" is a problem here, because sportspeople born in London (or a borough of it) have nothing in common with each other anyway. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
      I don't really understand that statement, can you explain? Crowsus ( talk) 23:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
      • Categories are primarily useful because they allow to find more information about a broader topic very easily. But people just born in a certain place is not the kind of topic that anyone would likely want to find more information about. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Rescope/upmerge to sportspeople, cricketers, etc by London borough. Locality isn't very helpful, but borough is an established tree for biographies in general so it would make sense to have sportspeople similarly divided. London's boroughs are each as big as a medium-sized city anyway. Grutness... wha? 02:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Grutness, I would be fine with changing target categories to boroughs. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 10:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/merge per nom. The fact that there are many sportspeople from London, among all places, does not mean it needs to be made into multiple irrelevant categories. Large categories are fine. Place Clichy ( talk) 21:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose original target to Greater London sport categories as separation into smaller categories can be very useful especially with sports that tend to have a large amount of players such as football. However I wouldn't be against them being merged into boroughs rather than locality as an alternative. Suonii180 ( talk) 22:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Suonii180, they are being merged to boroughs. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 18:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Suonii180, are you still opposed to the nomination? Just clarifying, the target categories are boroughs categories and not the Greater London categories. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 19:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/rename to intersections by borough and sport, e.g. rename Category:Cricketers from Wandsworth to Category:Cricketers from the London Borough of Wandsworth. WP:OCLOCATION says "Location may also be used as a way to diffuse a large category into subcategories", and this level strikes me as a useful balance. – Fayenatic London 22:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 14:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Qwerfjkl, I think majority is merge/rename as listed in the nomination. Only the creator of the categories is opposed while another oppose is against merging with a category that is not even the target category. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 20:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Omnis Scientia, believe me, few things make closing more difficult than the nominator (or indeed anyone else involved) asking me to close a discussion in a certain way. Qwerfjkl talk 19:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Qwerfjkl, sorry... was a bit annoyed at the when I posted this reply. Its been relisted twice now when, IMO, it should have been straight forward. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 20:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I understand where you're coming from, though. Sorry for trying to force it. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 20:12, 13 February 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:Sacred Heart High School (Ville Platte, Louisiana) alumni

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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT and WP:MFN
Sacred Heart High School (Ville Platte, Louisiana) is a small school in a small town and this category created in 2015 still only has 1 entry ( Danny Ardoin). Those two articles are directly linked so the category does not aid reader navigation and Mr. Ardoin is already in Category:People from Ville Platte, Louisiana so there's no need for a merge. I tried and failed to populate the category, but no objection to recreating it later if a few relevant biography articles ever get published. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 11:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge for now with no prejudice against recreation if the category can be appropriately populated. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 22:53, 12 February 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:Tulane Green Wave broadcasters

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:V and the spirit of WP:C1, an unpopulated category
There's not much here: two redirects which both point to List of New Orleans Pelicans broadcasters and that list article makes no mention of either Tulane University or their Green Wave team. Maybe the two announcers without articles also did work for a local college, but the current category doesn't aid reader navigation. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 11:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, a category with just redirects is not helpful for navigation at all. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Delete per nom. Let'srun ( talk) 19:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:North America–Pakistan relations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge/delete as nominated. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: bilateral relations are... bilateral. These are basically containers of national bilateral categories. This structure was set up just for Pakistan and frankly I don't think it should be developed for other countries. The handful of articles about regional cooperation can be moved to Category:Foreign relations of Pakistan. Place Clichy ( talk) 11:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge These relations are only with certain countries in the given regions, e.g. Category:Canada–Pakistan relations. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:17, 5 February 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:South Korea–Oceanian relations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge/delete as nominated. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one article: Korea–Pacific Islands Summit. It's a one-line article about a 2023 meeting, which can be categorized in the target category. Place Clichy ( talk) 10:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge There should be categories only for specific countries or international organizations, such as Fiji–South Korea relations. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:18, 5 February 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:Overseas Turkish organizations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories. Place Clichy ( talk) 08:05, 5 February 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:British scribes

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 01:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: These are medieval scribes; "British" is nonsensically anachronistic here. They are not referred to as "British" in academic literature (the equivalent word would be "Insular"). As an example, see this website. asilvering ( talk) 07:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I notice after nominating that there are actually two modern scribes in here. These shouldn't share a category; they are fundamentally not the same thing. Patricia Lovett in particular is best described as a calligrapher. -- asilvering ( talk) 07:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Alternative. I've created a child category which should solve the problem. Mason ( talk) 14:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Also I have restored the british writers parent category. Removing it is unhelpful as it isolates the category from the entire British people by occupation tree. Mason ( talk) 14:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Smasongarrison These people aren't writers, as a category. If it isolates the category from the British people by occupation tree to remove that category, the sensible solution is to add "British scribes" to "British people by occupation", not to miscategorize it. -- asilvering ( talk) 16:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
And yet, you reverted my change [1] and did not add the "sensible solution". I have added it, but my advice to you is to make categories more helpful rather than less helpful. Mason ( talk) 21:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Smasongarrison You can look at the time stamps on these and clearly see that the revert came before the comment here; I hadn't read your comment when I made the revert, and your edit summary did not make the reason for your objection clear. It would be very helpful if you would use pings when replying. -- asilvering ( talk) 00:57, 10 February 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:Korean false documents

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Document forgeries. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Also see Category:Japanese false documents, both created by User:Invokingvajras. I'm not sure what name is appropriate for this cat, or if it should even exist. I don't know if claiming "false" is appropriate on Wikipedia, it implies we're passing judgement on what's true and isn't. Open to suggestions. We should also probably take the same action for this as we should the one for the Japanese document category. toobigtokale ( talk) 06:03, 5 February 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:Victims in the United States

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. No prejudice against creating {{ disambiguation category}}s. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There 's only one "Victims in Foo" category, and it's not helpful for navigation because it combines people who were murdered with people who died in aviation accidents. If kept it needs to be a contain category, as being a victim isn't defining by itself. Mason ( talk) 05:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, or possibly turn the first and third into disambiguation pages, per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:46, 5 February 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:African victims of crime

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There's no need to have a category with only one category in it. Upmerge for now Mason ( talk) 05:34, 5 February 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:Breitbart London

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This distinction isn't helpful for navigation. There are only two people in this category. Mason ( talk) 05:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge for now, without objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:51, 5 February 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:Frederick Lions football players

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 13#Category:Frederick Lions football players

Category:Alaska Nanooks football

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category. Let'srun ( talk) 03:04, 5 February 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:Coroners of New York County, New York

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * it has begun... 03:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge this category. There's not need to diffuse by county yet. Mason ( talk) 17:27, 28 January 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) 02:31, 5 February 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:Local elections in Tanzania

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 13#Category:Local elections in Tanzania

Category:Tile sets of gigapixel images from Google Arts & Culture

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Gigapixel images from Google Arts & Culture. (non-admin closure) House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 20:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This category only has one category in it, which isn't helpful for navigation. (Also the non-merge parent category Cateogry:Tile sets only has this category in it). Mason ( talk) 01:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_5&oldid=1208581097"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE