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.
Nominator's rationale: Main article has now been moved to
flint, but it is ineligible for
WP:C2D so it is being listed here.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 00:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Consensus is that "flint" is the primary topic, this is strictly a procedural listing and is not about whether it is ambiguous.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 13:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
It happens often enough that a category keeps its disambiguator after an article is promoted to primary topic.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 23:36, 2 March 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:WikiProject Texas Tech University participants
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.
Delete per nom.
Gonnym (
talk) 11:52, 3 March 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's really not enough content to justify diffusion by type of smithing and nationality
Mason (
talk) 20:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge for now, without objection to recreate any of these category when some more articles are available.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Upmerge for now per nom.
NLeeuw (
talk) 17:02, 4 March 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:National Hockey League All-Star Game hosts
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.
Nominator's rationale: Hosting an all-star game is not defining for a professional team. The league, not the team, runs the event.
User:Namiba 17:06, 2 March 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:18th-century American women sculptors
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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one sculptor in here, which isn't helpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 16:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge for now, without objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:12, 2 March 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 suicide attacks
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.
Nominator's rationale: This is an aspect of the story, not the character themselves. Fails
WP:NONDEF and should be merged. Created by a blocked user.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 15:26, 2 March 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:Coat of arms of Yale University
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.
Nominator's rationale: ~This was recently speedily renamed from "Shields of Yale University" to "Coat of arms of Yale University", but needs either a plural (coats of arms) or a collective noun e.g.
Category:Heraldry of Yale University. –
FayenaticLondon 13:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Implementation note: 6 of the image pages will require manual editing. –
FayenaticLondon 13:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom
Mason (
talk) 16:24, 2 March 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:Anti-war video games
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:purge. (I did comment in this discussion, but only to say I would be willing to implement the result of the discussion if it called for purging.)
(non-admin closure)HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 03:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The fact is that almost none of these video games have been described as anti-war, leading to this largely being original research. I can see a few ones that are overtly anti-war, like Spec-Ops, This War of Mine and Valiant Hearts, but it's not really enough for an entire category on it. I suggest a *very* selective merge until there are more games that reliable sources call "anti-war" rather than just having a few "war is bad" themes in their story. This would also imply a dual merge to
Category:Video games about the military for some of them.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 00:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Since this nomination would entail a fair deal of manual work, I am relisting to give another week for objections. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 02:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Zxcvbnm:purge (and possibly merge as well) if and only if there is a volunteer to do the actual purging (and I am not this volunteer). Closing a discussion as purge while nobody is going to implement it is useless.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 10:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Zxcvbnm, would you be willing to implement this? —
Qwerfjkltalk 18:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Qwerfjkl,
Marcocapelle, and
Zxcvbnm: I am willing to do the purging if nobody else will. My understanding of this discussion is we are purging, and then if the category is too small we do a follow-up CfD for a merge? HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 16:57, 22 March 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:Hebrews
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.
Nomination adapted based on discussion below.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:delete (or convert to disambiguation page), the Hebrew language and the epistle to the Hebrews are two completely unrelated topics and they each have their own category anyway.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose This is a category for the
Hebrews as a group, not one about a language.
Dimadick (
talk) 08:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Hebrews is a term rather than a group, and the term may have different meanings, e.g.
Israelites or
Jewish Christians, the latter as in the letter to the Hebrews which is part of this category. Essentially the category is a case of
WP:SHAREDNAME.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Not a term. Read the main article: "Historians mostly consider the Hebrews as synonymous with the
Israelites, with the term "Hebrew" denoting an Israelite from the
nomadic era that preceded the establishment of the
united Kingdom of Israel. However, in some instances, the designation "Hebrews" may also be used historically in a wider sense, referring to the
Phoenicians or other ancient civilizations, such as the
Shasu on the eve of the
Late Bronze Age collapse."
Dimadick (
talk) 07:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Read the article further and you'll see that the term may also refer to Jewish Christians. Which overlaps exactly about my earlier point that the category content is about different usages of the term.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose, but split:
Category:Epistle to the Hebrews may be removed and linked with see-also links (needed for disambiguation) rather than parent-child membership. As a letter to early Christians from a Jewish background who chose to follow rather than reject Jesus as Messiah, it's clearly not closely connected with the general topic of the
Hebrews. –
FayenaticLondon 10:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
This could be a second best solution. But note that, after removal of the epistle to the Hebrews, nothing remains in the category but the main article, a redirect to an article that denies a connection with the word "Hebrews", and content about the Hebrew language in its own subcategory.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The article reports a majority view short of consensus about the linguistic connection, but denies an identity between the peoples. Nevertheless, as most of the page relates to the connection-or-not with Hebrews, I'll add the article itself rather than the redirect
Habiru. –
FayenaticLondon 14:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Comments on the proposed split would be appreciated! Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 02:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 10:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose and Purge Epistle to the Hebrews per Fayenatic. Nom is right there won't be much left; it's worth considering a follow-up merger with
Category:Israelites to address that.
NLeeuw (
talk) 17:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I am surely ok with purging and merging.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:12, 3 March 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.
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 10:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Mason has a fair point about merging.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:27, 2 March 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:Al-Moussawi family
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.
Nominator's rationale: This is not a family, but a category for descendants of an 8th-century figure, much like the parent cat
Category:Husaynids. The
nisba and main article is at
al-Musawi, so the category should be named accordingly.
Constantine ✍ 08:49, 2 March 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:Lynching survivors 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.
Nominator's rationale:merge, redundant category layer, the parent category is otherwise empty.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom
Mason (
talk) 16:25, 2 March 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.
Re-created women rulers by century categories
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete per earlier discussions. There is no need to merge because the subcategories are still also under the by-occupation parent.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nomMason (
talk) 03:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Do not support, however I assume it will be deleted anyway, so I would simply state an opinion: it is a shame to delete the ruler-category.
A "Ruler" is a neutral term for a person who rules. Regardless if they rule as a
monarch in their own right, or merely rule as a temporary
regent on behalf of another person. Thus, the term "Ruler" does not define what type of ruler. The Ruler-category is thus usefull and practical to use as a container category for the sub-categories Regents and Monarchs. It makes them easier to find.
When the Ruler-category is removed, it will be harder to find the answer to a question such as "How many women ruled in the 6th-century"? The women-monarchs and the women-regents will no longer have a container-category. It makes the information harder to find for an interested reader. That is a shame.
I made this comment simply to state an opinion, since I do not have the capacity to take part in any long discussion, but it was a shame for the reader and for practicality that such a descision was made. Thank you.--
Aciram (
talk) 00:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I am sorry that you do not agree with the long series of decisions – each of which has been taken by consensus – to phase out the term "ruler" of categorisation purposes. Over the course of February to September 2023, a steady majority of Wikipedians has found "ruler" to be too ambiguous as a term in hundreds of category names, and that it is better to be more specific about which positions a given person held, so as to avoid confusion. You are entitled to your opinion that it is a "neutral term" (even though that is evidently a minority view now).
Consensus can still change, but only through discussion and establishing consensus. I've given you many opportunities to participate. Since you refuse(d) to engage in discussion, however, there is no reason for the consensus to change in favour of your point of view.
What is not appropriate, however, is to re-create categories that have been deleted by consensus simply because you disagree with the consensus, thereby disrupting the process. This isn't the first time, but I do hope it will be the last. I do not want to be in conflict with you, but rather work together where we can, especially when it comes to writing about women's history.
Please understand that I am no more opposed to women's history than men's history; the entire Rulers category tree is being phased out regardless of gender. Rather, by splitting the women rulers category tree into more specific trees, we are actually paying more respect to different individual women and groups of women instead of lumping them all together as unspecified "rulers", with the apparent goal of turning them into mere numbers ( "How many women ruled in the 6th-century"?). I have enough respect for women to say they are not all the same, and the community consensus appears to agree. Have a good day (and I hope you had a good International Women's Day yesterday).
NLeeuw (
talk) 14:56, 9 March 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:Books by Giorgio Agamben
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lists of cricket 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 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:Demoscene images
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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, there's one image in here, which isn't helpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 01:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Just delete, it is unclear whether the image is related to
Demoscene.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:46, 2 March 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:Weapons of the interwar period
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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Only one page in here, which isn't helpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 01:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Dual merge per nom, without objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:49, 2 March 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:Trader Horn
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.
Nominator's rationale: The epon category only contains the writer and two movies named after them. It's not helpful for navigaton
Mason (
talk) 00:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
delete The Film articles are so over-categorised the category has been emptied on closer examination, now a candidate for a speedy. Thanks for pointing the issue out.
JarrahTree 01:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
comment what could have been a simple process has been complicated unnecessarily, as the deletion reason is obvious, one wonders...
JarrahTree 02:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:OCEPON and the articles are already directly interlinked.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:51, 2 March 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:2007 Croatian novels
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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There is only one novel in each of these categories, which isn't helpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 00:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree. Very small categories are not helpful.
Bduke (
talk) 02:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. One may wonder if it shouldn't become Serbocroatian novels, based on language, at least before the independence of Croatia, but let's leave that for later.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:54, 2 March 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Main article has now been moved to
flint, but it is ineligible for
WP:C2D so it is being listed here.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 00:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Consensus is that "flint" is the primary topic, this is strictly a procedural listing and is not about whether it is ambiguous.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 13:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
It happens often enough that a category keeps its disambiguator after an article is promoted to primary topic.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 23:36, 2 March 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:WikiProject Texas Tech University participants
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.
Delete per nom.
Gonnym (
talk) 11:52, 3 March 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's really not enough content to justify diffusion by type of smithing and nationality
Mason (
talk) 20:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge for now, without objection to recreate any of these category when some more articles are available.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Upmerge for now per nom.
NLeeuw (
talk) 17:02, 4 March 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:National Hockey League All-Star Game hosts
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.
Nominator's rationale: Hosting an all-star game is not defining for a professional team. The league, not the team, runs the event.
User:Namiba 17:06, 2 March 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:18th-century American women sculptors
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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one sculptor in here, which isn't helpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 16:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge for now, without objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:12, 2 March 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 suicide attacks
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.
Nominator's rationale: This is an aspect of the story, not the character themselves. Fails
WP:NONDEF and should be merged. Created by a blocked user.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 15:26, 2 March 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:Coat of arms of Yale University
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.
Nominator's rationale: ~This was recently speedily renamed from "Shields of Yale University" to "Coat of arms of Yale University", but needs either a plural (coats of arms) or a collective noun e.g.
Category:Heraldry of Yale University. –
FayenaticLondon 13:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Implementation note: 6 of the image pages will require manual editing. –
FayenaticLondon 13:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom
Mason (
talk) 16:24, 2 March 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:Anti-war video games
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:purge. (I did comment in this discussion, but only to say I would be willing to implement the result of the discussion if it called for purging.)
(non-admin closure)HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 03:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The fact is that almost none of these video games have been described as anti-war, leading to this largely being original research. I can see a few ones that are overtly anti-war, like Spec-Ops, This War of Mine and Valiant Hearts, but it's not really enough for an entire category on it. I suggest a *very* selective merge until there are more games that reliable sources call "anti-war" rather than just having a few "war is bad" themes in their story. This would also imply a dual merge to
Category:Video games about the military for some of them.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 00:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Since this nomination would entail a fair deal of manual work, I am relisting to give another week for objections. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 02:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Zxcvbnm:purge (and possibly merge as well) if and only if there is a volunteer to do the actual purging (and I am not this volunteer). Closing a discussion as purge while nobody is going to implement it is useless.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 10:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Zxcvbnm, would you be willing to implement this? —
Qwerfjkltalk 18:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Qwerfjkl,
Marcocapelle, and
Zxcvbnm: I am willing to do the purging if nobody else will. My understanding of this discussion is we are purging, and then if the category is too small we do a follow-up CfD for a merge? HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 16:57, 22 March 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:Hebrews
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.
Nomination adapted based on discussion below.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:delete (or convert to disambiguation page), the Hebrew language and the epistle to the Hebrews are two completely unrelated topics and they each have their own category anyway.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose This is a category for the
Hebrews as a group, not one about a language.
Dimadick (
talk) 08:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Hebrews is a term rather than a group, and the term may have different meanings, e.g.
Israelites or
Jewish Christians, the latter as in the letter to the Hebrews which is part of this category. Essentially the category is a case of
WP:SHAREDNAME.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Not a term. Read the main article: "Historians mostly consider the Hebrews as synonymous with the
Israelites, with the term "Hebrew" denoting an Israelite from the
nomadic era that preceded the establishment of the
united Kingdom of Israel. However, in some instances, the designation "Hebrews" may also be used historically in a wider sense, referring to the
Phoenicians or other ancient civilizations, such as the
Shasu on the eve of the
Late Bronze Age collapse."
Dimadick (
talk) 07:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Read the article further and you'll see that the term may also refer to Jewish Christians. Which overlaps exactly about my earlier point that the category content is about different usages of the term.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose, but split:
Category:Epistle to the Hebrews may be removed and linked with see-also links (needed for disambiguation) rather than parent-child membership. As a letter to early Christians from a Jewish background who chose to follow rather than reject Jesus as Messiah, it's clearly not closely connected with the general topic of the
Hebrews. –
FayenaticLondon 10:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
This could be a second best solution. But note that, after removal of the epistle to the Hebrews, nothing remains in the category but the main article, a redirect to an article that denies a connection with the word "Hebrews", and content about the Hebrew language in its own subcategory.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The article reports a majority view short of consensus about the linguistic connection, but denies an identity between the peoples. Nevertheless, as most of the page relates to the connection-or-not with Hebrews, I'll add the article itself rather than the redirect
Habiru. –
FayenaticLondon 14:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Comments on the proposed split would be appreciated! Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 02:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 10:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose and Purge Epistle to the Hebrews per Fayenatic. Nom is right there won't be much left; it's worth considering a follow-up merger with
Category:Israelites to address that.
NLeeuw (
talk) 17:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I am surely ok with purging and merging.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:12, 3 March 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.
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 10:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Mason has a fair point about merging.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:27, 2 March 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:Al-Moussawi family
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.
Nominator's rationale: This is not a family, but a category for descendants of an 8th-century figure, much like the parent cat
Category:Husaynids. The
nisba and main article is at
al-Musawi, so the category should be named accordingly.
Constantine ✍ 08:49, 2 March 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:Lynching survivors 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.
Nominator's rationale:merge, redundant category layer, the parent category is otherwise empty.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom
Mason (
talk) 16:25, 2 March 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.
Re-created women rulers by century categories
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete per earlier discussions. There is no need to merge because the subcategories are still also under the by-occupation parent.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nomMason (
talk) 03:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Do not support, however I assume it will be deleted anyway, so I would simply state an opinion: it is a shame to delete the ruler-category.
A "Ruler" is a neutral term for a person who rules. Regardless if they rule as a
monarch in their own right, or merely rule as a temporary
regent on behalf of another person. Thus, the term "Ruler" does not define what type of ruler. The Ruler-category is thus usefull and practical to use as a container category for the sub-categories Regents and Monarchs. It makes them easier to find.
When the Ruler-category is removed, it will be harder to find the answer to a question such as "How many women ruled in the 6th-century"? The women-monarchs and the women-regents will no longer have a container-category. It makes the information harder to find for an interested reader. That is a shame.
I made this comment simply to state an opinion, since I do not have the capacity to take part in any long discussion, but it was a shame for the reader and for practicality that such a descision was made. Thank you.--
Aciram (
talk) 00:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I am sorry that you do not agree with the long series of decisions – each of which has been taken by consensus – to phase out the term "ruler" of categorisation purposes. Over the course of February to September 2023, a steady majority of Wikipedians has found "ruler" to be too ambiguous as a term in hundreds of category names, and that it is better to be more specific about which positions a given person held, so as to avoid confusion. You are entitled to your opinion that it is a "neutral term" (even though that is evidently a minority view now).
Consensus can still change, but only through discussion and establishing consensus. I've given you many opportunities to participate. Since you refuse(d) to engage in discussion, however, there is no reason for the consensus to change in favour of your point of view.
What is not appropriate, however, is to re-create categories that have been deleted by consensus simply because you disagree with the consensus, thereby disrupting the process. This isn't the first time, but I do hope it will be the last. I do not want to be in conflict with you, but rather work together where we can, especially when it comes to writing about women's history.
Please understand that I am no more opposed to women's history than men's history; the entire Rulers category tree is being phased out regardless of gender. Rather, by splitting the women rulers category tree into more specific trees, we are actually paying more respect to different individual women and groups of women instead of lumping them all together as unspecified "rulers", with the apparent goal of turning them into mere numbers ( "How many women ruled in the 6th-century"?). I have enough respect for women to say they are not all the same, and the community consensus appears to agree. Have a good day (and I hope you had a good International Women's Day yesterday).
NLeeuw (
talk) 14:56, 9 March 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:Books by Giorgio Agamben
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lists of cricket 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 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:Demoscene images
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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, there's one image in here, which isn't helpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 01:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Just delete, it is unclear whether the image is related to
Demoscene.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:46, 2 March 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:Weapons of the interwar period
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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Only one page in here, which isn't helpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 01:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Dual merge per nom, without objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:49, 2 March 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:Trader Horn
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.
Nominator's rationale: The epon category only contains the writer and two movies named after them. It's not helpful for navigaton
Mason (
talk) 00:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
delete The Film articles are so over-categorised the category has been emptied on closer examination, now a candidate for a speedy. Thanks for pointing the issue out.
JarrahTree 01:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
comment what could have been a simple process has been complicated unnecessarily, as the deletion reason is obvious, one wonders...
JarrahTree 02:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:OCEPON and the articles are already directly interlinked.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:51, 2 March 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:2007 Croatian novels
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.
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There is only one novel in each of these categories, which isn't helpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 00:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree. Very small categories are not helpful.
Bduke (
talk) 02:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. One may wonder if it shouldn't become Serbocroatian novels, based on language, at least before the independence of Croatia, but let's leave that for later.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:54, 2 March 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.