Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions

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

Speedy renaming and merging

[edit]

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

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

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

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

If the current name should be redirected rather than deleted, use: 

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

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

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

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

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 12:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 52 open requests (refresh).

Current requests

[edit]

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

But the big problem here is with the plural rather than the capital. I would be happy with Category:Postmasters-general of Victoria per the discussion about capitalisation there. StAnselm (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ill withdraw and start a discussion, fixing both the capitalisation and pluralisation. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed requests

[edit]

On hold pending other discussion

[edit]
  • None currently

Moved to full discussion

[edit]

Current discussions

[edit]
Shortcut

November 21

[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit]

Category:Further education colleges in Conwy County Borough

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Merge also to Category:Buildings and structures in Conwy County Borough and Category:Education in Conwy County Borough

Category containing only a single article, better categorised within the parents. AusLondonder (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bordeaux tram stops

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete/merge, duplicate categorization, these tram stops are already in Category:Bordeaux tramway stops. It is not meaningful to have categories of tram stops by neighbouring communes of Bordeaux, even more because most of these villages (in fact suburbs) do not even have a root category on their own. On top of that, many of these categories are very small.@Liz and Chris j wood: pinging contributors to this previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist cave temples

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename follow-up on this previous discussion and aligning with parent category name. @Kingsmasher678 and Johnbod: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ministers of the Victoria state government

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Most (if not all) of the capitalisations are inconstant with WP:JOBTITLE. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per norm Ultraodan (talk) 08:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female soldier and warrior characters in video games

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Pointlessly specific and poorly defined, many of the character included are just 'warriors' which can apply to almost every fictional character depending on the amount of original research. Proposing merging into the target, then going through and cleaning up. Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English High School of Boston alumni

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The corresponding article for this category is titled The English High School. That article also says that it is "[c]ommonly referred to as Boston English." "English High School of Boston" should not be an option for the name of this category. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:10th-century Cypriot bishops

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Isolated cateogy. Upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 02:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]



November 20

[edit]

Category:Further education colleges in Carmarthenshire

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Merge also to Category:Buildings and structures in Carmarthenshire

Category:Education in Carmarthenshire Category containing only a single article, better categorised within the parents. AusLondonder (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Juvenile prisons in England

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates Category:Young Offender Institutions. AusLondonder (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Shouldn't this be merged and redirected? SMasonGarrison 22:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle and Smasongarrison's comments?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trump administration personnel

[edit]
Nominator's rationale:I think we should differentiate between the first and second go-around for Trump. Vinnylospo (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question. What do the Cleveland administration categories look like?SMasonGarrison 22:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Whitnash

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing only the main article and a biography, both are already appropriately categorised. Unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Crouch, Swale's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The biography does not belong here, per WP:COPSEP, it is appropriately in Category:Clergy from Warwickshire. The football club (article and subcategory) is likely to move away from Whitnash soon, it is barely a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: perhaps we need more guidance on the number of pages a topic category or other categories should contain/could contain given SMALLCAT was deprecated. Whitnash parish had a population of 10,489 in 2021 but Stanhope had only 4,436 but Category:Stanhope, County Durham has 56 pages and a sub category. I'm not of the mind that we should keep all categories except those like Category:Churches in Kenton, Devon for example that would probably only even contain 1 page as most villages only have 1 or 2 churches but most villages/parishes like Kenton would probably be able to have a list of listed buildings and several would probably be clearly notable even if we assumed not every listed building was notable per WP:GEOFEAT and there would probably be one or 2 other things in the parish or something else associated with the village so add to a category. Consider Category:Grassington which until recently had only 2 articles other than the main article but now has a total of 10 articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Response to Crouch, Swale's latest comment? A subcategory and three articles as of relisting (one of which is a biography).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the American Antiquarian Society

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: A non-defining characteristic. User:Namiba 17:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Times that 1100 Wikipedians supported something

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: We don't really need such fine-grained divisions. The amount of times 1000 Wikipedians or more supported something is already very low, and subdividing to the nearest hundred will leave most categories empty, or with one item at most. Having them all in Category:Times that 1000 Wikipedians supported something makes for better navigation. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree once we reach 1000 we should make it exponential if needed or by 500s •Cyberwolf•talk? 14:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Ngawi

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Recently created and seemingly duplicates the longstanding Category:People from Ngawi Regency, which was emptied out of process to populate it (I have reverted those actions). Ngawi is ambiguous, so this category should not be titled without a disambiguator. It seems that subcategorization is not merited, but I don't have strong feelings about a merge outcome if the community decides renaming would be best. ✗plicit 12:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
small problem I have a strong feeling that all Indonesian categories should be consistent across all Regencies or Provinces, whatever the topic - I havent looked or checked, but individual stand alone categories against the rest of Indonesian categories should be strongly discouraged. JarrahTree 12:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fiction fandom

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: After removing some subcategories, I realize this category is kinda unnecessary, most things related to fandoms are associated with the fans of creative work(s) of fiction. A merge is highly recommended for how small this category has become is and why I believe it is unnecessary. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, it isn't so small that a merge would be necessary, it has no less than 10 subcategories. Besides I disagree with the first part of the rationale too, since sports fandom and music fandom are just as important. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Film and video fandom

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Why is it titled film AND video fandom? Shouldn't it be simply titled "Film fandom"? We already have "category:television fandom" which doesn't have a messy name like this one. I'm also removing several things unrelated to film from this category in accordance to the proposed rename. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medical doctors from Rajahmundry

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medical doctors from Jharkhand

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 19

[edit]

Category:Gardening books

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I suggest renaming to use 'about', per parent Category:Works about gardening. This variant is more clear. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If there's no opposition this should be fine but let's give it one more pass first.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 23:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confederation of the Rhine

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename and purge, from 1806 to 1813 Germany was called Confederation of the Rhine but it did not include Austria and Prussia. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Large nomination; allowing extra time for objections.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to gather more participation and resolve concerns about precision being unnecessary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 23:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century explorers from the Russian Empire

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Was opposed at speedy by @Altenmann: by the creator a similarly named user, in spite of the fact that there is no other category in Category:20th-century Russian people by occupation that uses the Russian Empire naming convention SMasonGarrison 20:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 23:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Puerto Rico Adjutant Generals

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Correct plural per Category:Adjutants general of the National Guard of the United States StAnselm (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 23:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Olympic football venues

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE. Content is already better shared at List of Olympic venues in football. User:Namiba 15:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ministers for the Arts (Victoria)

[edit]
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: Withdrawn. Starting a new discussion addressing the broader issue of a number of subcategories within Category:Ministers of the Victoria (state) state government (non-admin closure) GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ministries are the same portfolio just a different name. GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:30, 19 November 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:Postmasters general of Australia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Correct capitalisation per Postmaster-General's Department article. StAnselm (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: consistent with the corresponding article. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looking at the category's page history there seems to be a lot of going back and forth with the capitalision. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Category:Postmasters general includes offices from many countries, some of which use a hyphen, and some don't. (Of course, that category was moved twice speedily, without any discussion.) StAnselm (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the hyphen is important too. The rationale for moving the parent cat was "None of the 11 sub categories use a hyphen", but as far as I can tell that simply wasn't true - the hyphen for this category was removed three days later. Would you be OK with Category:Postmasters-general of Australia? StAnselm (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Birth control law and case law

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I think we should split this becayuse typically case law is nested under law SMasonGarrison 01:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films acted by Puneeth Rajkumar

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: We don't create categories for actors unless they wrote, directed or produced. Kailash29792 (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 18

[edit]

Category:Defunct NBA G League venues

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE. None of these venues are defined by formerly hosting G League games. User:Namiba 22:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works about intersex

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: See Talk:Films_about_intersex#Requested_move_14_November_2024, Talk:Literature_about_intersex#Requested_move_18_November_2024, and Talk:Television_works_about_intersex#Requested_move_18_November_2024. Based on Category:Lesbian-related_television, Category:LGBTQ-related television, and Category:LGBTQ literature (siblings/cousins/analogues/relatives). Per this comment by Spookyaki. Web-julio (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Intersex

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_20#Category:Transgender (plus Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 30#Category:Feminism and transgender) and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_12#(LGBT_identity)_fiction. Web-julio (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marvel Comics film characters

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category's description is for "Film characters based on Marvel Comics", although in recent months, it has become populated by an absurd amount of articles for the comic characters themselves, with many of those being for characters only RECENTLY being featured in some mass media. This cat has primarily operated as a holding for the three current subcats which are actually for film adaptations of these characters. This cat is repeatedly readded to articles on the comics versions and I am requesting full deletion as the current subcats handle all relevant media adaptations in film, or, if that does not pass, then I would request this cat to be purged and converted into a formal holding cat. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comment: I would also like to note that the creator of this cat, User:Dietic, has a history of making similar categories as this one for Marvel adaptation characters that were overcategorized on the comics articles and were subsequently deleted in the past few years, many of which may be viewed via their talk page. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clear consensus for a change; should it be purged or deleted?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christianity in Sussex

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Merge and redirect. Most content is at the level of East Sussex and West Sussex, so these are not currently helpful for navigation. Leave redirects to discourage re-creation. – Fayenatic London 11:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comments?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See above relisting comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional extraterrestrial robots

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:NONDEF as, while they are a character type that appears from time to time, there does not seem to be something defining about the combination of extraterrestrial and robot in particular. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English Olympic medallists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: As per the recent deletion of Category:Californian Olympic medalists based on the fact that California and England and Scotland and Wales do not field Olympic teams, this category should be deleted. This came up in the discussion on California by editor @Marcocapelle:. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Scottish Olympic competitors etc. Those should probably be nominated too, but in the meantime it is a valid location for all the medalists. Crowsus (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think we need to be more explicit to get consensus (in other words, list out all merge targets explicitly :D). There is clear consensus in this discussion that the categories should not exist, however.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:English Olympic competitors, Category:Scottish Olympic competitors and Category:Welsh Olympic competitors respectively. Couldn't be simpler. Crowsus (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Hockey League goaltenders who have scored in a game

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: While interesting, this is WP:TRIVIAL. User:Namiba 20:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, not defining and topic already covered by a comprehensive list article. Crowsus (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PWHL

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The PWHL played its first season without permanent names but each team has since adopted one. These are the same franchises in the same places and same personnel. An attempt to speedy the renaming was declined. User:Namiba 20:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather keep the categories separate, such as with Category:Mighty Ducks of Anaheim players and Category:Anaheim Ducks players. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a key difference is that the original names were always intended to be temporary. They were placeholders.--User:Namiba 22:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It will still be technically incorrect in my opinion to say that Lindsey Post for example played for the New York Sirens. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pubs in the Isle of Man

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing only a single article about a defunct pub which is now a private residence. Not helpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former pubs in Devon

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. Better categorised within parent. AusLondonder (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Charities based in Gibraltar

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation and better categorised within the parent. AusLondonder (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maps of Gibraltar

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single image and a module. Unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dunes of Gibraltar

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing a single article that would be better categorised within the parent category. Unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Venues of the Bundesvision Song Contest

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE (also see Bundesvision Song Contest for background/nature of the specific competition/event). (All articles in the cat are sufficiently categorized otherwise.) Felida97 (talk) 12:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FA Cup final venues

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE. (All articles within are sufficiently categorized otherwise.) Felida97 (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2017 FIFA U-17 World Cup venues

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE. (Side note: Merging would empty Category:FIFA U-17 World Cup stadiums, which only contains the discussed cat.) Felida97 (talk) 11:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw that, apart from one, all articles were/are already in Category:Football venues in India and/or one of the more specific location subcats. I've just categorized the remaining one, so this might as well be considered a nomination for deletion. Felida97 (talk) 11:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2021 FIFA Futsal World Cup venues

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE. Felida97 (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Journalists from Tirana

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Interscope-Geffen-A&M artists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: An editor emptied this long-standing category, created a new category, and then turned this category into a redirect to the new category. They should have gone for a speedy rename instead. I'm hoping that these two categories can undergo a history merge so that the page history of the original category is merged to the newer category. Liz Read! Talk! 03:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally added the wrong target as it was actually "speedy deletion". I meant to say WP:CFD (for "discussion"). Darrion N. Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 04:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Puerto Rican Freemasons

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: We don't have Category:American Freemasons by state or territory so why does this exist? Mach61 00:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 17

[edit]

Category:Universities in South Papua

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category with only one page in it SMasonGarrison 23:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fooian-century Fooian male/women classical pianists

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think we need to diffuse at the 5-way intersection of nationality, gender, century, instrument, and genre, especially since there isn't a FOOian-century male classical pianists or FOOian-century women classical pianists parent. SMasonGarrison 12:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on FL's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison and Marcocapelle: Thoughts? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I get FL's point about size, but I'd still suggest considering non-classical parent category, such as Category:20th-century French male pianists, which only has 25 people in it, so not much information is really lost in that direction. SMasonGarrison 23:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cape Verde–United Kingdom relations

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing no main article and no articles at all. Subcategories already exist in sufficient category trees. Empty category is unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • When trying to populate a new category with subcategories you would look for how the siblings are populated. That isn't any different in this particular case. So I don't understand FL's objection either. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the fact that there is no article on the topic does not mean the category should not exist. Clearly the expatriate subcats are an aspect of bilateral relations between the countries so that is why the category was created. Or if that's deemed not to be sufficient, its a very half-hearted nomination given that there are 63 entries in Category:Bilateral relations of Cape Verde, 53 of which contain only subcategories, 40 of which are only 1 subcategory. Deleting one category achieves little unless it is being treated as a test case for others, but it hasn't been stated as such and ideally should have more participation to act as a credible precedent. But personally I feel they're mildly useful for navigation - alternatively, does the existence of a Foo-Bar relations article make a category for that subject more valid and useful? Maybe the whole Bilateral relations of Foo intersections should be looked at - are they needed at all? Crowsus (talk) 13:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Family of William Jennings Bryan

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: William Jennings Bryan was one of many notable family members so I think centering him is not the best way forward. It is Category:Bryan family (William Jennings Bryan family) in Wikimedia Commons. User:Namiba 15:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: are other categories on Wikipedia named like you're proposing? SMasonGarrison 00:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are some. See Category:Eliot family (United States) and Category:Morton family (United States).--User:Namiba 19:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This appears to be a fairly common formulation for categories relating to relatives or other topics concerning famous individuals, such as presidents of the United States, industrialists, etc. The proposed alternative, "Bryan family", would tend to attract unrelated persons named "Bryan" unless formulated as in Wikimedia Commons. However, that formulation seems rather pedantic—though it may well have a good reason for being so in that case, since there are probably quite a lot of photographs relating to William Jennings Bryan and his family, and it might be the product of a merger between related categories. There is no compelling reason why the corresponding category at Wikipedia needs to use the same formulation, though it may be advantageous to link the categories. The current title here is clear, concise, and logical. Let's keep it where it is. P Aculeius (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on P Aculeius's objection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chemical looping technologies

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: From previous discussions and new research (from article), these specific technologies look to be chemical processes meant to act as a method of carbon capture. @DMacks I would appreciate input regarding the chemistry side — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChemicalBear (talk • contribs) 21:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was some pre-discussion on my talk page about procedural stuff. Pinging participants from the previous discussion: @Marcocapelle, DMacks, and Smasongarrison. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the category. Comments on merge target would be appreciated. ChemicalBear suggests Category:Chemical processes; does that work for folks?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine as a merge target for me SMasonGarrison 23:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Evil child films

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: As per precedent set on multiple occasions, rename category to make it more clear that this category is intended only for films in which evil children are a primary aspect, not an incidental one. DonIago (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Writers from Pasco, Washington

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Travelers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: It is tough to understand how this could possibly be defining. Most everyone is a traveler at some point, so it's simply too vague to function as a category. Furthermore, many of the categories herein make no sense. Migrants and stowaways are not necessarily travelers by nature, but are taking a potentially one-time journey. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Viking Age slave trade

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: rename to something more general, it was a trade chain from eastern Europe to among others Al-Andalus, the Vikings had something to do with it, but did not dominate the whole chain. The issue is not that Vikings were around in this period, the issue is that most Slavs weren't Christianized yet and hence were accepted as subjects of slave trade. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There seem to be a misunderstanding here. This category is meant to be used for the slave trade which was managed by the vikings specifically, not just slave trade taking place in Europe during the middle ages. That would be too wide an issue: there is also for example the Prague slave trade, the Venetian slave trade, etc.
The vikings did not dominate the trade in slaves from Western Europe to al-Andalus. They did participate in it, certainly, but they did not dominate it.
They did, however, certainly dominate the trade in slaves from Europe to the Middle East via Eastern Europe/"Russia". The slave trade played a major part for viking economy, and the vikings played a major part as a supplyer for the trade in European slaves to the Abbasid Caliphate via Russia.
The category is meant to be used only for the slave trade of the vikings. It could be a subcategory of a future middle ages slave trade of course. --Aciram (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is not just the element of supply, there is also a further chain and a demand side. Via Prague the slaves went to al-Andalus and via Bukhara there were various other sources of slave supply than Vikings too. Attributing everything to the Vikings skews the facts. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:James Bond articles up for deletion

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category isn't helpful anymore as it doesn't track current issues relevant to the project but anything that was ever sent to AfD. For current issues, we have Article Alerts which notifies projects about pages sent to AfD. Gonnym (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional kenjutsuka

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: It is unclear how the page creator arrived at the conclusion that these characters practice "Japanese swordsmanship" beyond the fact that they use a katana. It seems to be original research. That they use swords is not as up for debate, however. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Landsverk

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: selectively merge, the category only contains the main article and a very broad topic article, not specifically about Landsverk. The subcategory suffices and can be moved to Category:Economic history of Landskrona. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of transport in Landskrona

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: diffuse, except for the one article this isn't really about history of transport. Move the article to Category:Transport in Landskrona and move the ships built subcategory to Category:Economic history of Landskrona. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by paranormal abilities

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The current title of this category suggests the abilities are real. Given that these abilities have never been scientifically proven, it should specify they are alleged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Individual heroes and heroines

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Recently created category with obvious WP:POV issues. Declaring real people to be "heroes" in general (not just recipients of some subjective award from a national POV) is inherently controversial. Will Armenians be OK with this being a parent to Category:National Heroes of Azerbaijan? Will Palestinians be OK with recipients of the Hero of Israel being here? Will the recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross or Hero of the Soviet Union be included? The previously existing Category:Heroes is limited to fiction and legend to avoid this problem. See also the comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of heroes by country and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of heroes. RL0919 (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second, its supercategory is Category:People by behavior which is huge. It has for instance Category:Misers and Category:Imposters which, is a person who just lies about their education an imposter? It's subjective, well that is how reality works. Category:Rebels by nationality. "Rebel" is a real English word, yes, but who is a "rebel"? My rebel is your terrorist is the next guy's traitor. Who is an Outlaw? Gunslingers? Political prisoners? Serial killers? Subjective, and fine. That doesn't mean we should pretend the English term "Rebel" has no meaning and isn't an important characteristic of some people.
"Skeptics by nationality". Subjective. "Whistleblowers by nationality". Subjective. "Bibliophiles by nationality", which what does that even mean -- people with big book collections? People who read, write, or review lots of books? Literary people who are just neck deep in the world of books? Subjective. I think these categories are very good myself, but if you don't agree then clean up Category:People by behavior with a big well-attended discussion (and good luck with that). But let's not take the gaptoothed-smile approach and pick out this category and that category at random. That would be sujective. But if you really want to, this category is surely not the place to start.
Yes of course there are marginal cases for all these categories, very very many categories. Figuring out who should be in the categories is why we have knowledge, judgment, intelligence, and experience. Is that bad. Should we not have and use those things. Yes editors will disagree. Oh well that is the Wikipedia isn't it. If we had a professional executive editor to decide that'd be different. But we don't. We have to rely on our wits instead. "People who have received an actual Medal of Honor" as opposed to people who haven't is tidy and easy, but being tidy and easy for editors is not our main goal, and if that's that the only card one has describe people maybe that is not a great virtue.
Third of all, there are people whose defining characteristic is being heroic. In my mind that's super important. How the heck are you going to define, whose article reads

Joseph Lumpkin Merrell (1862 – 1939)[1] was an American sheriff. He was sheriff of Carroll County, Georgia at the turn of the 20th century who gained nationwide fame for stopping a lynching.[2] Articles about his bravery appeared in [many national papers][3] He is also mentioned by Mark Twain in his 1901 essay The United States of Lyncherdom.[4]

He's categorized as a sheriff. Well lots of people are sheriffs. Lots of people were born in 1862. The only important category he has is Category:Lynching in the United States. But was he a perpetrator? Victim? Defense attorney? Activist? No he wasn't, he was a brave hero and that is why he has an article and "being a hero" is more of a shared than "being an accountant"
Gabriele von Lutzau is in Category:Flight attendants. Is that why she has an article? Did she set a record for most miles flown or something? No, she was a heroine at Mogadishu. She is in Category:Hijacking survivors and Category:German people taken hostage but she was no passive survivor or hostage like say Theo Albrecht etc. etc. Very different things.
Von Lutzau has an article because she was a heroine. She just was, is all. And so forth. That is why I made the category, to serve the reader who is using categories for navigation or definition. "Serve the reader" is important. If you can't put people in the category which is the reason the person has an article... you are basically misleading the reader. "Oh OK he was a lyncher, I'm looking for heroes." Let's not do this. And let's not grasp at straws such as subjectivity (which I think I've refuted pretty well) or set up strawmen (since when do Palestinians or Russians or whomever have veto power over us? Armenians and Azerbaijani heroes would be handled the same as Armenian and Azerbaijani poets etc, whatever we are doing now. Right? POV can be put into a whole lot of our material, are we ruled by fear of that now?) These are really weak arguments, to delete material which is probably helpful to the reader. Herostratus (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Is the Namor a hero or a villain" Is this a trick question? That particular characters is known for constanty switching sides between heroic and villainous affiliations, and for his near-constant mood swings. Dimadick (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah taking out the categories would be justified I suppose, if you all want to. It's something that could be discussed on the talk page Unless the category is, I don't know, deleted. Then it can't.
I looked it up, and WP:NONDEFINING starts with "One of the central goals of the categorization system is to categorize articles by their defining characteristics" and there's more in that vein. Enh, we have lots of WP:RULES that conflict with WP:OTHER_RULES that we can WP:SHOUT at each in WP:ALL_CAPS. But I wouldn't overvalorize that.
Without this category, people like Joseph Merrill (sheriff) won't have a category with their defining characteristic, even tho the article says "Articles about his bravery appeared in the New York Evening Post, the Atlanta Constitution, the Louisville Courier Journal, the Washington Star, and the Boston Herald". That is why I made the category. For people like him. I looked at Harriet Tubman and it has "Frederic Douglas wrote 'The midnight sky and the silent stars have been the witnesses of your devotion to freedom and of your heroism'." Kate Larson (historian) wrote a book "Bound for the promised land : Harriet Tubman, portrait of an American hero". Granted Tubman has a couple-few other defining categories, so that's not the only defining category. But for Gabriele von Lutzau, Joseph Merrill (sheriff), and Thomas Beloat (Thomas Beloat (February 6, 1855 – February 23, 1946) was an American sheriff of Gibson County, Indiana at the turn of the 20th century noted for stopping a lynching... Beloat was one of two law enforcement officials whose bravery in preventing lynchings...), and Abraham Zelmanowitz (Has President Bush saying "And we have seen our national character in eloquent acts of sacrifice. Inside the World Trade Center, one man, who could have saved himself, stayed until the end at the side of his quadriplegic friend." That's four and and I'm sure there are at least a few more.
So... if we can't have this category, these persons don't have a defining category, and the article should maybe be deleted, which is not unreasonable for the four cases I've found so far. That's not my call. But that's a weird reason to delete articles IMO.
I think the best way forward here is to ask of all these types of categories (there are quite a few, I mentioned a couple above) should all be deleted. That's a reasonable position, maybe they should. IMO individual things of a set being deleted cos somebody random came across it is messy and not excellent. I'll set up a thread in say [[Talk:WP:CATEGORIES]]. Until then, I'd like to request relisting until that's talked thru. Herostratus (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not. It's a big global question. I posted just where people might be interested, WP:Categorization, I have no idea what there would think either way, and I deliberately avoided mentioning this thread or even the exact category name just so that people would have to dig to find us here, so it's as non-forumshopping as I could possibly do. The thread is Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Tension between WP:NONDEFINING vs. WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:CATDEF which I think describes the root issue, after some digging and thinking about it. Herostratus (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Made a minor fix to the link so it goes to the right section.) RevelationDirect (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who worked to change several WP:OC editing guidelines and still has concerns with one, I'm willing to engage over the application of the guildine here and the underlying wording there.
Unless broader editor interest in revising WP:SUBJECTIVECAT emerges, I wouldn't support delaying this nomination though. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK that's fine. Herostratus (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Ninjutsu practitioners

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Can this really be separated from ninja in an obvious way? Due to extreme WP:OVERLAPCAT, I suggest selectively merging and any who do not apply should be upmerged to Category:Fictional practitioners of Japanese martial arts instead. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tyrant flycatcher stubs

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The use of the English name for this category seems silly. Tyrannidae is easier to type out; the template is named Template:Tyrannidae-stub, not Template:Tyrant-flycatcher-stub; everything in this category is supposed to be there because of the template; and most of these categories use the scientific name, including every other subcategory of Category:Tyranni stubs. Grey Clownfish (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Melee weapons

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Given melee weapon was deleted, this category in itself is facing a crisis. I suggest a merge for any applicable articles, as it is no longer a viable means to categorize things. This also includes any subcategories reading "melee weapons" to be merged into their respective nation subcategory. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will add the countries to the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the nomination; no opinion on the merits. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Languages written in Latin script

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category, as one that is a decade old, is not even implemented correctly; currently, it is more dependent on subcategories than pages in the category itself, but even then some languages like Indonesian or Filipino aren't even included there. However this trait should not be defining because Latin is the most common writing system. This category still does contain some languages that aren't written in the Latin script by standard, such as Hassaniya Arabic or Meitei, but I don't think trait is defining either. Other categories under Category:Languages by script may be kept, or maybe they'll be deleted as if writing systems as a whole are not defining. You decide. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem for including per-language subcategories as members rather than pages? In fact there should not even be any "page" (i.e. Galeries on Commons). Galeries are not relevant very for languages that have many aspects.
That category is relevant especially for languages that are commonly written with several scripts, and there's a need to subcategories per script (Latin being one of them), and then properly index the contents written in each script (so not all per-language categories need to be members, as most languages have a default script and there's still no need to distinguish them; but that's not even treu for English which is multiscript, even if Latin is its default).
This category should just be fed (very slowly) according to the IANA or CLDR databases and their related use in BCP 47 where categorizing per script is needed: if we categorize English written in Deseret, and list English as a member of "Language written in Deseret script", then we still need to list it also as member of "Languages written in Deseret script". As well we cannot assume a single script in many languages (not even Arabic! Which is also written in the Latin script in some wellknown Arabic variants, and for which case we have distinctive contents in Commons, that we do not want to mix with other Arabic-Arabic contents where we'll have difficulties to locales Arabic-Latin contents, jsut like we'll have difficutlies to locate English-Deserrt contents if they are all mixed deeply within English-Latin contents.)
Even if the Latin script is the most widely used one in the world, we don't want to place any image in that Category:Languages written in Latin script. All that is designed is to have subcategoeies members (and notably languages that are known to be written in mutliple scripts). We don't need per-language galeries as members (even if there are a few ones, these galeries should just be members of their own category to be listed as members). So that category should only contain subcategories, not galeries, not files for images/logos/symbols/audio/video that all should be placed in relevant subcategories of the per-language category (and possibly of the language-script combination category). Commons is not a videogame to play with for your convenience in Antarctica, it is for educational purpose.
Your statement also about "Hassaniya Arabic" is wrong: it is also written in the Latin script (as a standard in a wellknown country where it replaces the Arabic script in frequent cases). The same remark applies to Meitei (as written in Assam where the Latin script more common than the Meitei Mayek script for that language, even if it is not recognized officially, just because the language itself is still not recognized locally in order to promote the Bengali-Assamese script). It is a clear sign that you make this deleteion requrest based on false unchecked assumptions about how languages are written. And this is perfectly why such category by script is useful: it helps collecting facts that are countering such false assumptions, and make these facts more visible and easier to locate. This category will then grow very slowly but surely as needed as we get medias about them and categorize them properly to avoid them being lost in the mass where your assumption takes its root. Commons is especially useful when it collects medias that are otherwise difficult to find and study.
The fact that this categotry is "old" is not relevantat all as a criteria for deletion. The fact it has few members and thuis count progresses very slowly is aldo not relevant at all (this is per design), and this does not hurt at all but improves the indexing of Commons, to distinguish contents per language-script and locate them correctly (by helping finding language-script combinations when they are more rare and precious). verdy_p (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request: Can you please be more concise? This is a lot of text to ask volunteers to dig through. SMasonGarrison 16:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional males by franchise

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Few to none of the things in here qualify as a franchise, making this category misleading. Made by a blocked user. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If not kept, merge? Dimadick seems to imply a rename? Still no consensus to change anything... thoughts and further comments?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Demon superheroes

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The combination of demon and superhero does not appear to be defining, at least without evidence that it is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Zxcvbnm's latest comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Serious games

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining/overlapping SMasonGarrison 12:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on zxcvbnm's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tiziano Ferro redirects

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: There are no album or song redirect schemes such as there is for television episodes (e.g. Category:Episode redirects to lists). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then there are tens of thousands of these redirects in Category:Redirects from songs that really should be further organized in some way, for maintenance purposes if nothing else. I have been working with the songs, albums and redirects of this artist and have found it helpful to organize the dozens of related redirects. I don't see the need for deletion, and actually I'm encouraged to create a scheme.— TAnthonyTalk 23:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But assuming this idea will horrify the music redirect community, I can accept a consolidation to Category:Tiziano Ferro redirects.— TAnthonyTalk 23:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Find it helpful for what? What are you looking for by categorizing variations on the title of L'amore è una cosa semplice created as redirects? Any actual redirects (not misspellings, miscapitalizations, etc.) for albums or songs that are listed in the discography or track listing can be merged to the parent albums/songs category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I admit I do not understand what Marcocapelle means by a "maintenance process" – what would you like to see in order to support keeping/merging the categories? If you support keeping/merging the category, is that something that can happen?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there an answer to Marcocapelle's question?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Restaurants in Hoboken, New Jersey

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Five entries (one of which is a redirect) as of relisting. Is that enough to keep the category?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...Djflem (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See above relisting comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lost in Quebec and Marcocapelle: thoughts? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Celtic stone heads

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Move to Celtic stone idols, as per recently created article that widens scope. Ceoil (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American slave trade

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Seems to cover the same scope BaduFerreira (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean oppose. Per Marco Procedurally, the merge target is too broad. SMasonGarrison 02:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 00:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 16

[edit]

Category:Football in American Samoa

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per a recent RfD, football in American Samoa now points at American Football in American Samoa. To avoid confusion where American football articles would get tagged here, and to create a clear place to put soccer venues, we should rename this category to name it as "Soccer". This would also bring this category in line with parent categories Category:Soccer in the United States and (Category:Soccer in insular areas of the United States). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Template:Palestine

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: duplicate category. For context, the naming scheme "Category:Template:<topic>" is used in some language editions of Wikipedia, but not in English Wikipedia. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional scarred characters

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category has an issue in that scars are often non-defining for characters, for example an instance where a character had a very small scar somewhere nobody even mentioned. It would be better to classify the odd instance where a scar might be defining in the parent category of disfigurements instead rather than have a category devoted to it like this one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st-century American fashion designers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_3#Fashion_designers_by_century The norm is that modern occupations like fashion design, models, activists etc aren't diffused by century SMasonGarrison 15:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a related category about the Category:19th-century American fashion designers at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_November_11#Category:19th-century_American_fashion_designers @Marcocapelle: SMasonGarrison 16:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tesla, Inc. vehicles

[edit]

Category:Tesla, Inc. vehicles needs discussion. Is the ", Inc." necessary to disambiguate? All Tesla vehicles, it would seem from looking through Wikipedia articles, are vehicles from "Tesla, Inc.", yet those vehicle article names do not include the "Inc." bit in any of there names. Seems that Category:Tesla vehicles should be sufficient. I would propose that simplification. N2e (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please tag your nomination.SMasonGarrison 16:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Broad gauge locomotives in Brazil

[edit]
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: procedural close, the nominated category does not exist (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Broad gauge locomotives in Brazil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.178.73 (talk) 13:10, 16 November 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 works

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Like Category:Creative works, this needs specification that it involves in-universe creative works rather than just containing works of fiction. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:GLAM

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: better understandable category names. It was listed for speedy renaming by User:Gonnym and opposed by User:Armbrust since C2C is not clearly enough applicable here. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While the projects are created as sub-pages and titled as Wikipedia:GLAM/National Archives and Records Administration, a C2D would be WP:National Archives and Records Administration, but the category system as gone for Category:Wikipedia-National Archives and Records Administration collaboration, which makes the proposal correct. Gonnym (talk) 09:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lowell mill girls

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Non defining. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sportspeople from Tewksbury, Massachusetts

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just 1 entry. Had 3 but two of them were improper. A person isn't from Foo just because they died there and the articles had no mention of Tewksbury in any other way. Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Various video game franchise categories

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Multiple categories for franchises containing only 2 articles each. Each category has just one article for the first game and the other for a sequel. These kinds of categories usually require a significante amount of content. I mean, would you need to make a category for Slime Rancher? QuantumFoam66 (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American soccer players of Nigerian descent

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I am going to nominate all the Fooian sportspeople of Bar descent cats in due course after all the British ones were upmerged, seems no difference between them and other countries. This one is a level deeper, to a specific sport, and is not defining in any way for either the individuals or their heritage as significant to their sport careers. Crowsus (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 04:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Ermesinde

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Recently created 1-article category. Category:People from Porto District works fine. Gjs238 (talk) 02:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Male actors in Gujarati cinema

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories that are effectively cut and paste moves. The category creator emptied Category:Actors in Gujarati-language films and moved them to Actors in Gujarati cinema. If the decision is to keep the new name, the older category should be renamed, instead of the new category being kept SMasonGarrison 01:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UKS SMS Łódź players

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: UKS SMS Łódź is a multi-sport club with football, volleyball and other sections. Propose renaming from "players" to "footballers" to avoid ambiguity and potential confusion. - Darwinek (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Charlotte Amalie of Hesse-Kassel

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON and WP:SHAREDNAME
No conceptual objection to this category but there's only two articles beyond the biograpy. And one of those is Charlotte Amalie, U.S. Virgin Islands, a pre-existing town renamed after the queen. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 15

[edit]

Category:American actors by location

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer SMasonGarrison 23:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American male actors with disabilities

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Do we really need a 4-way intersection between nationality, gender, occupation, and disability? per WP:EGRS. SMasonGarrison 23:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Teetotallers

[edit]
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: Was G4'd.. The Bushranger One ping only 02:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry category for a non-defining characteristic. The person filed here was a Prime Minister of Finland, so the question of whether he drank alcohol or not is not a centrally defining facet of his political career. Bearcat (talk) 23:06, 15 November 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:February 29 births

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete per G4. FYI as reviewing admin an isolated creation of a February 29 category is sufficiently different from a more general births by year scheme that I wouldn't G4 the first as a recreation of the second. But here both have been deleted several times before so there's no doubt G4 applies. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category for a non-defining characteristic. We categorize people by their year of birth, but not by their month-and-day of birth, and the fact that February 29 doesn't happen every year is not a reason why being born on February 29 would be more defining than being born on February 28 or March 1. Bearcat (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found another previous deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 13#Category:Leap day births. Felida97 (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw the more recent Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 11#Category:People born on February 29, which resulted in "no consensus", and even more recently, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 16#Category:People born on February 29, where the result was "delete" and which was subject to a deletion review, where the deletion was endorsed (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 26#2010 February 16). Felida97 (talk) 15:32, 18 November 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:Executed Abkhazian people

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, category contains only one article, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional ranged weapons practitioners

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Falls under WP:SUBJECTIVECAT as any character who throws their weapon may be considered a "ranged weapon user" even if the weapon is not intended to be used at range. Created by a blocked user. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People sentenced to death

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This would appear to fail WP:NONDEF, as being sentenced to death is potentially temporary and can be rescinded or rendered moot. It is not a "defining trait" like having been executed is. This deletion would also include all subcategories of "People sentenced to death" besides Category:Executed people, Category:Fictional executed characters and Category:Execution survivors. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional robbers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: See WP:OVERLAPCAT. Extremely duplicative with the older category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Robbery is differentiated from other forms of theft because it involves violence, per the main article. Theft is not necessarily a violent crime, robbery involves either violence or the threat of using violence. Dimadick (talk) 05:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional bandits

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category didn't exist until recently, it's rather duplicative with the merge target and can easily be construed as the exact same thing. Per WP:OVERLAPCAT, they should be merged back. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:World Baseball Classic venues

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT User:Namiba 19:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Negro league baseball venues still standing

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure if this category should be deleted and turned into a list or renamed but I don't think it should stay as is. User:Namiba 19:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by bird strikes

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Aircraft accidents are seldom attributed to a single solitary cause; a number of interrelated factors are typically involved, and in some cases, the primary cause of an accident is strongly disputed. The proposed category name is more neutral, and is also more consistent with existing subcategories under Category:Accidents and incidents involving airliners, e.g., Category:Airliner accidents and incidents involving runway overruns. Carguychris (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Converts to Baptist denominations

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Seems better, and matches the subcats for converts from Islam. – Fayenatic London 14:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Baptist

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Seems clearer than the current title which, even though it currently matches the main article Independent Baptist, is an adjectival phrase missing a noun. – Fayenatic London 14:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:California pioneers

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: selectively merge, the real pioneers are already in Category:People of the Californias and Category:People of Alta California and it is an arbitrary choice to expand the pioneer period to the 1870s. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there are a lot of American pioneer categories. What about converting this into a container category to facilitate navigation? SMasonGarrison 23:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deadly fungi consumed as a food

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT: is this intersection really helpful? Currently contains only one article; I can find no more entries in the parent categories which could fit here. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comic poets

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Current name is confusing. While in classical scholarship these are often called simply "comic poets" and the fact that they are ancient Greek is assumed from context, in a general encyclopedia it's not obvious that this category should solely be for ancient Greek writers. Periodically comic poets who are not ancient Greek are wrongly put in this category, which is part of Category:Ancient Greek comedy and Category:Ancient Greek poets by genre. (See today here and here which gave me the motivation to actually start this discussion, but it's a problem I've seen before). Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FIFA World Cup stadiums

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This is textbook WP:OCVENUE which states Avoid categorizing locations by the events or event types that have been held there, such as arenas that have hosted specific sports events. I don't think the guideline could be any clearer. --woodensuperman 09:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Establishments in the Grand Duchy of Hesse

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, except in 1869 these are all one- and two-article categories, which is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mission Indians

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: purge and selectively merge, this category contains very few articles which are really about Mission Indians, most articles are about current tribes in California some of whose ancestors were Mission Indians. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Mission Indian is still a term very much in use today. California tribes are definitely split by those who were missionized and those who were not; the ramifications are still felt today. Fifteen tribes still use the term "Mission Indians" in their official name. Yuchitown (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial buildings in Egypt categories

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT, all should be upmerged to Commercial buildings in Egypt. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Decorating

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Contains only one article; possible duplicate of Category:Decorative arts QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Romani people in art

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: It only has just one article, it might be merged into some other category but I can't think of anything right now. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once a handful of articles is written we can easily recreate the category. It does not make sense to create categories in advance though, that is really not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category has now been improved and populated with a "handful" of existing WP articles on Romani people in art, including extremely well known people such as Tracey Emin. It seems to have been a neglected category, but not an irrelevant or useless one. Netherzone (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Plantations in the Danish West Indies

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: WP:CATNAME
This is just a truth in advertising nomination since all 43 articles in this category are specifically sugar planations. The Danish version of the Triangular trade focused on this single crop. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged the USVI category and notified the creator as of this timestamp to allow for the merge proposed above. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 14

[edit]

Category:Fictional destroyed planets

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: An extremely specific category that only covers three articles (Alderaan, Gallifrey, Krypton). Extremely small and narrow in focus, and doesn't seem particularly useful in comparison to the much wider scope of "fictional planets". Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Further education colleges in Bridgend County Borough

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Merge also to Category:Buildings and structures in Bridgend County Borough.

Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. Better categorised within parents. AusLondonder (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Restaurants in Cornwall

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Merge also to Category:Cornish cuisine.

Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Critter Country

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: On November 15, 2024, the original Critter Country at Disneyland will officially be renamed Bayou Country.

Even though the second version of the land in Tokyo will remain known as Critter Country, I think it would be a good idea to rename this category Bayou Country (similar to the fact that there is a category for the theme park area Frontierland, while the equivalent lands in Tokyo and Hong Kong Disneyland are known as Westernland and Grizzly Gulch, respectively.) Contributor19 (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caves of Xinjiang

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: These are all artificial, and thus not true caves. This is a more accurate description. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should actually be renamed to Category:Buddhist grottoes in Xinjiang Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caves of Shandong

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: One article, which should be moved to the next highest category Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caves of Liaoning

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Contains one article, which should be moved up the line to Category:Caves of China

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pokémon species by game

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Consistent with the lists. It should be noted that English Wikipedia is the only Wikipedia that categorizes them by game, all others are by generation. It would also be inclusive of those introduced in PLA such as Kleavor or PGo such as Meltan, which currently are isolated. VIII and VII are the only generations which include Pokémon introduced in different games, all other lists or categories by game would be the same as by generation. Web-julio (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming makes sense and is more consistent and inclusive overall. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a better title/semantics: Would removing the word "introduced" or replacing "introduced in" with "from" be better? Or rename them to Category:Generation I Pokémon, for example? Since that's how the list refers to them and would be short and less wordy. Another issue is: some Pokémon were introduced before their generation was introduced (or am I wrong?). Web-julio (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the species with articles were introduced prior to their generation, so it shouldn't be an issue, but either way I'd consider them part of their normal debut generation given it's their most prominent debut appearance. As for the name, I have no preference whether the "introduced in" should be removed or not. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 06:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. So now I think "introduced in" is fine. Web-julio (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caves of Henan

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every article that is listed here is a manmade site, and fits better under the proposed name, since caves are predominantly natural.
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should actually be merged to Buddhist grottoes in Henan Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Big 12 Championship Game venues

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT User:Namiba 19:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caves of Fujian

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Every page is just a redirect to the same page. Not usefule. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional orcas

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains one article about a fictional orca, Orca (DC Comics). The rest are either redirects or about different works. The category could be moved to Category:Fiction about orcas, but it should not be in the fictional characters category tree. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gobiesociformes stubs

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The order Gobiesociformes is no longer recognised by recent sources, which instead place its only family (Gobiesocidae) into the order Blenniiformes. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 15:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

US state independents

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: C2A. Independent should be lowercase as it is not a proper noun. Consistent with use at Independent politician Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 15:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or rather, not C2A. First time using User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/massXFD and I meant to speedy them! I suppose a discussion isn't unreasonable. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 16:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure. I understand the argument that "independent" isn't a proper noun, but it always seems to be treated as one in every case I can recall, as though it were a political party (and in a few cases it actually is, though probably not most of them). But it always seems to be capitalized in relation to elections. Maybe that's just for consistency, but changing it in all of these cases might be confusing, since it differs from general practice. P Aculeius (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To get a sense for the general use in sources, I checked the first few Google News results for "Bernie Sanders independent". In the articles I opened, 16 used lowercase, five used uppercase, and one used a mix. It's clear some sources use "Independent," but I don't think it's "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources" as MOS:CAPS suggests. For intrawiki consistency, I believe there are only three article titles which refer to independent politicians in a US context, all of which use lowercase: List of third party and independent performances in United States elections, Third-party and independent members of the United States Congress and List of third-party and independent United States state governors. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 05:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you account for how the word is used in those results? They may be making a distinction between the word as applied to specific politicians where they would normally use the name of a party (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, etc.), which is how the titles of these categories seem to use it, and more generic uses of it as a common noun/adjective to describe politicians in general. If a distinction exists between how it is used when capitalized and when in lowercase, that distinction would be relevant to this discussion. P Aculeius (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the uses from the first few RSes in the news results: "Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent beloved by progressives," "He is the longest-serving independent in Congress" (Times of Israel); "The independent, who caucuses with Democrats, said…" (ABC News); "Though he is an Independent, Sanders caucuses with the Democratic Party" (USA Today); "Though an independent, except when he ran for president, twice, as a Democrat, the 83-year-old senator caucuses with Democrats" (Boston Globe); "Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats" (Guardian); "As a lifelong independent, were you hesitant about running in a Democratic primary?" (Nation). I think all the quotes are referring to "independent" as a descriptor where they would otherwise state a party affiliation. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 05:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pokhara Premier League

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category not needed, as the only sensible article in the category is the main event article itself (plus one person somewhat associated to the event is in there). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Belgian people

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The current name gives the impression that these are characters with an in-universe nationality or citizenship. Most of them have no defined nationality though and are (often deliberately) created as somewhat "universal" or vaguely Western European. A rename of the category may make this clearer (better suggestions for the new name are welcome!) Fram (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, this should be discussed together with the sibling categories. Just renaming Belgium does not make sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without comment on what the categories should be for, the current category tree does contain some articles (e.g. Doctor Evil, Hercule Poirot) where the character is specifically Belgian but the creator is not, some where both character and creator are Belgian (e.g. Tintin (character)), and some where the creator is Belgian but the character is not specifically, or if they are no mention is made of it in the relevant article (e.g. Gil Jourdan lives in Paris; if he is canonically Belgian our article does not mention it). There are also several articles included which are about the work of fiction rather than the character (La Patrouille des Castors, L'Élève Ducobu). Whatever happens to the category it could do with cleaning up. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tintin is never officially or canonically stated to be Belgian, although much points to it. But perhaps the category needs splitting instead of deleting then, any suggestions what the best name might be for the ones created by a Belgian? Fram (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disputed territories of Pakistan

[edit]
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: Merged Gedrose (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We already have Category:Territorial disputes of Pakistan and similar Category:Territorial disputes of India, as well as comparable categories for all other countries with territorial disputes. This category is a duplicate under a different name and should therefore be deleted. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename to Category:Disputed subdivisions of Pakistan - my intention was to group the territories or subdivisions that are disputed (by other countries) as a subcategory of "Category:Territorial disputes of Pakistan" and "Category:Subdivisions of Pakistan". Not all the territorial disputes of Pakistan involve a specifically named territory or subdivision. For example the Durand Line (the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan) does not refer to a specific subdivision or territory but the exact placement of the border is disputed by Afghanistan. The Sir Creek dispute is about where the maritime border (between India and Pakistan) should run. However, the Pakistani control of the whole of Gilgit-Baltistan is disputed by India, and vice versa with Ladakh. I felt there is a distinct group of articles that could go in this category. Gedrose (talk) 12:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We already have 271 categories named Category:Territorial disputes of [country/region]. You are suggesting adding another duplicate category, Category:Disputed territories of [country/region], totaling 271 and placing them under Category:Territorial disputes of [country/region], beginning with Pakistan. I believe we need to nip this in the bud and speedily delete this category. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. We have 128 such categories on Category:Territorial disputes by country, plus a couple more not in that category. Your search includes about 150 categories that have no relevance to this discussion. Are you actually basing your !vote on an unrefined search listing? I'm not sure why you cannot see that there is a distinction between a disputed border (which might be as little as a couple of miles either way) and a disputed province/state/district/territory claim (which might cover tens of thousands of square miles). Gedrose (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The search has nothing to do with it; out of around 128 countries with territorial disputes, this category for Pakistan is still the only one. I think we need a broader discussion on whether we want to take this approach, as Pakistan is clearly not the only country with disputed territories. Taking this approach would require roughly 128 new categories of this kind. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:16, 14 November 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:Government in Albania

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Merging the categories will eliminate redundancy and align with standard naming conventions for national government categories. Iaof2017 (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Identity-first language for autistic people categories

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I suggest changing the name of the overall category to “Autistic people” and all subcategories such as “Entertainers with autism” to e.g. "Autistic entertainers” (some subcategories are already named this way). I realise that there was a discussion about this a few months ago, but I believe another discussion is warranted because:

a) the previous discussion only involved about three people, with no evidence that any represent the autistic community;

b) The rationale for the conclusion was that “person on the autism spectrum” is a compromise between identity-first language and person-first language. This is factually incorrect. It is demonstrably person-first language. It is just less disliked than another form of person-first language, “person with autism.” The comment that expressed the rationale for the conclusion also had a misconception that being autistic is different to being on the autism spectrum;

c) We shouldn’t compromise between a term clearly preferred by a community and a term more preferred by people outside that community; we should choose the former;

d) The previous conversation only pertained to the main category, not the subcategories, many of which currently retain the language most disliked by autistic people: “… with autism"; and

e) Changing to identity-first language has been suggested on the talk pages of some subcategories over the years but action hasn't been taken.

The reason for proposing identity-first language for all categories and subcategories is that the autistic community clearly prefers to use identify-first language rather than person-first language; this is well-documented as the wish of autistic communities since 1999 and with increasing empirical evidence of it as a preference of ordinary autistic people in various English-speaking countries.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]

"Identity-first language" in English refers to the simple adjectival form (in English the adjective comes first). We generally use this form of language when describing a neutral identity - e.g. "Hungarian entertainers," "lefthanded entertainers," "autistic entertainers". Person-first language is distancing language, generally used when you want to distance a person from something negative about themselves (e.g. "entertainers with COVID-19," "entertainers with criminal convictions," and sounds wrong when used for neutral characteristics (e.g. "entertainers with Hungarianness," "entertainers with lefthandedness"). As such, identity-first language is neutral about autism (see WP:COP and WP:NPOVTITLE), while person-first language implies autism is negative. It also implies autism is separable from a person's core self, and is associated with low acceptance of autistic identity which, in turn, is associated with low wellbeing for autistic people.[25] Elcalebo (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, this is clearly correct. The preference of autistic communities for identity-first language is well established across many surveys from reputable sources.
English-speaking autistic people overwhelmingly prefer identity-first language. Not all do - up to about 1 in 5 prefer person-first, and it would be polite to respect the preferences of individuals on this, where they have been clearly expressed. However, it has been clear for some years that they are in the minority.
All reputable sources that have kept up with debate in recent years now recommend defaulting to identify-first language for autistic people.
Thanks for raising this! Oolong (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about respecting personal preference. This could maybe be done on individual pages eg quoting how they describe themselves. Elcalebo (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to identity first language in line with the primary article also being so at Autism where similar discussions were held and the article was moved away from person first to identity first language as reflects the sentiment of the majority of the community it discusses. Raladic (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Important context! Elcalebo (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MikutoH, Smasongarrison, TheZoodles, and Omnis Scientia: pinging participants to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping. My comments on the previous discussion may be disregarded. I now realize I was partly arguing out of a resistance to change, which is obviously not a good motivation (though I do think it's a little bit funny; an autistic struggling with change in autism category nomenclature). I am going to refrain from further discussion in the current proposed name changes. Cheers. TheZoodles (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the wish of the community is not a decisive argument here. What matters is the WP:COMMONNAME in (recent) literature. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for advising about the relevant policy. In this case, the wish of the community is shaping the common name in recent literature. In gathering citations above, I was focusing on references to the wishes of the community. But some of them are also about general guidelines for professionals and writers in light of different groups’ preferences. The more recent these are, the more likely they are to suggest identity-first as default, trumped by personal preference at least in personal interactions. Elcalebo (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if the preference of the community in question was at odds with how the world at large overwhelmingly talks about members of that community, the existing Wikipedia policy is that common usage should win out. I'm nearly sure I remember seeing something to the effect that where it's not that clear which usage is more common, the subject's own preference should decide? I can't find it right now though.
    In any case, I don't think it matters too much here; there's been a strong trend towards using identity-first language for autism by default for a good few years now, across the board. Besides autistic people overwhelmingly preferring it, family members tend to, and even professionals - many of whom were actively taught that person-first is better - have shifted very strongly this way over the last few years.
    Any relevant style guide that isn't recommending identity-first language already is out of date. Oolong (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. This one is a little personal to me as I found out a while back that I am highly likely an undiagnosed austic woman - not gonna lie, that really explained a lot 😭 - so thank you, @Elcalebo, for starting this convo. Its a very important one to have. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As both a diagnosed autist and a former biomedical researcher, I can confirm that in both the autistic community and medical/scientific usage there is a definite movement away from 'person with autism' to 'autistic person'. Many recent publications advocate that clinicians ask autistic patients what their preferred usage is, when interacting with them. Urselius (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Identity-first language is prevalent in the more recent literature. If sources are required I recommend referring to textbooks which often discuss terminology choices in their introductory sections.--TempusTacet (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. I'm also onboard with renaming based on the literature, because it's something like 80% of autistic people prefer autistic people, other stake holders (parents, clinicians etc) are more mixed. But like... I think we should defer to what the community calls themselves. SMasonGarrison 13:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per above. --MikutoH talk! 22:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Retail buildings in Slovakia

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fuji TV

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Official full station name VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist as these categories were not tagged for CfD until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 04:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Volcanic eruptions in 1963

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Duel merge for now. This is an isolated category that's currently unhelpful for navigation SMasonGarrison 04:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:General elections by country

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category is a container category for parliamentary elections, but its current title is problematic for several reasons, the main one being that 'general election' is an ambiguous term, as in some countries it refers to parliamentary elections (e.g. India, UK, New Zealand etc), in some it refers to elections in which both the president and parliament are elected simultaneously (most Latin American and many African countries), and in others it refers to elections in which posts are up for election at multiple levels of government. The national subcategories are (in almost all cases) named in accordance with the article title format for each country, and of the 96 subcategories, 48 use 'parliamentary', 29 use 'general', 16 use 'legislative' and four use 'federal'. As 'general' should be discounted for the reason mentioned above and 'federal' would not be appropriate as most countries are not federal, this leaves 'parliamentary' and 'legislative' as the two realistic options for alternative names. As well as being the most commonly used, I think 'parliamentary' is also the clearest description for the average reader, and is also the format used on Commons. There is one anomaly in the category that will need dealing with as a result of a name change (the US one, which is the only subcategory that isn't for parliamentary elections), but could just be removed from this specific category tree). Number 57 03:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aggressor units of the United States Air Force

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Contains only the subcategory Aggressor squadrons of the United States Air Force. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on The Bushranger's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Worms (obsolete taxon)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: The name of the obsolete taxon is "Vermes", not "Worms". jlwoodwa (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main article and the relevant history is located in Worm.Dimadick (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Worms and populate with the other taxa listed in the disambiguation category currently there. Otherwise rename per nom and purge content not about Vermes. This category is a weird hybrid of several things, and we either needs to embrace that, or give it a clear focus. It's possible (I haven't checked) that after the purge there won't be enough content to warrant a category and it should be deleted wholly - no objection to that. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I probably should've specified in the last relist: Thoughts on Pppery's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Latvian people from the Russian Empire

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: delete, if fully populated this would largely overlap with Category:People from Courland Governorate and Category:People from the Governorate of Livonia. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could Category:Latvian people from the Russian Empire be the parent in a sense of both those categories? Because for navigation it might be helpful to make this a container category. SMasonGarrison 22:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Nyttend's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's response?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films set in summer camps

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Do we need both categories? I can see a difference between the two, but I doubt that small distinction will actually be followed. Gonnym (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Every film in the about a summer camp cat must be in the setting cat because its impossible to have a film about a summer camp without being set in a summer camp. Setting is a primary defining feature of narrative works like film, so it is an essential category and should not be deleted or merged.
That said most of these articles belong in the setting category tree and not the topic category tree. One of the problems with the topic category tree is it often confuses topic with setting. Most of these films aren't about summer camps but about other things like friendship, growing up as a teenager, and host of the other things. Adams Family Values would be a perfect example of this. That film is about a family in conflict with a gold digging murderess as it primary story line. Parts of the film (and its just a side tangent) just happen to be set in a summer camp and its not "about a summer camp". Likewise The Parent Trap isn't about a summer camp but two twin sisters who re-unite after being separated at birth, and then switch places in an effort to reconnect their parents. Only a small portion of the film is "set" in a summer camp, and most of movie happens in the Boston and California homes of their parents. However, a documentary film about a summer camp would be a film about a summer camp, and a fictional film entirely set in a summer camp could feasibly be considered about a summer camp depending on narrative arc. Topic is much more subjective category whereas setting is clearly definable.4meter4 (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You just said in more words what I said in my nomination, that the small distinction isn't something that editors can handle, seeing as the about category is full of films not about summer camps. Gonnym (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of. There is overlap but category trees by topic and setting often do overlap, which is ok. Topic and setting are two different things, but they are both defining aspects of a narrative work that may or may not overlap. I don’t think it hurts to have both, but if we must delete one the topic cat is by far the more ambiguous and therefore less useful category. The setting cat should be kept.4meter4 (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus for any particular action. I will tag Category:Films about summer camps to allow for a reverse merge. Further comments in general would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comments in general would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional mammoths

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: 3 out of 4 of the entries in this category are redirects. Only article is of a book series and not of a fictional mammoth character. (Oinkers42) (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on FL's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To those of you supporting a rename, what is your second choice? To those of you advocating the category's deletion, do you support a rename instead? Everyone: If renamed, what should the rename target be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already, I don't know why you haven't already, just 3 redirects, and The Mammoth Trilogy. Category:Fiction about mammoths could exist, but it probably would go by different name, nonetheless I would find better to simply categorize those article in Category:Mammoths just because. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, a Category:Mammoths in fiction or Category:Fiction about mammoths would include topics not already in Category:Fictional mammoths, such as The Mammoth Hunters. BD2412 T 17:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:IShowSpeed livestreams

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category only contains redirects. It is generally considered harmful for a category to only contain redirects so there isn't much else for me to say here. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities and towns in Kiphire district

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing just one article. Unhelpful for navigation. Merge to parent, already categorised in other parent. AusLondonder (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Can I understand the rational for merging? If it is because there is only one related article, then do we have any guidelines saying we shouldn't create a category with one article and with the possibility of inclusion of many more articles as and when they are created? Such creation helps users to categorise easily instead of creating the articles in a broader category.
It's good to be streamlined rather than waiting for symptoms to appear to take actions. Pls note, I am not saying we should create empty categories! Thaejas (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A category containing only one article is simply useless for navigation. It serves no purpose. If more articles are created or located, no objection to re-creation. AusLondonder (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 20:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yacht racing biography stubs to Sailing biography stubs

[edit]

Follow-up to this, broaden the scope of these stubs to sailing (Olympic sport) to include windsurfing, kitesurfing, dinghy racing etc. WPs Sailing, Stub sorting and Sports were notified a month ago without any feedback. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Large nomination; given extra time for objections.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children of Clint Eastwood

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Not needed, Category:Eastwood family exists. --woodensuperman 09:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not a rationale for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the whole tree, only historical figures are usually included in this category. It is not WP:DEFINING for these people as they are notable in their own right. There are only two entries for entertainers in this category, which have recently been created. I don't think this is a precedent we should be encouraging. --woodensuperman 10:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many articles that categorize a person by anther related person (for example their spouse or parent). These articles were originally categorized with Clint Eastwood, so what you are basically saying is that we can't have these specific categories, but categorizing a person with the category for another person is alright. Inpops (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, people should not be categorised by other people per WP:DEFINING, WP:OCASSOC and WP:COPSEP. --woodensuperman 13:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 20:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children of Charlie Chaplin

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Not needed, Category:Chaplin family exists. --woodensuperman 09:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not a rationale for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the whole tree, only historical figures are usually included in this category. It is not WP:DEFINING for these people as they are notable in their own right. There are only two entries for entertainers in this category, which have recently been created. I don't think this is a precedent we should be encouraging. --woodensuperman 10:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 20:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1500 V DC multiple units of Victoria (state)

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Unneeded subcategory of Category:1500 V DC multiple units of Australia, and a complete carbon copy of the Category:Electric multiple units of Victoria (state). EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 20:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1500 V DC multiple units of New South Wales

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Same reason as Category:1500 V DC multiple units of Victoria (state); unneeded and clone subcategory, except the NSW one excludes New South Wales R set, which to me is only a marginal difference. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 04:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 20:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ikusaka, Nagano

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing only the main article, an an article about a national park, both of which are already appropriately categorised. AusLondonder (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Useful category, for grouping of articles about Japanese municipalities, with links also to equivalent categories in other language Wikipedias. Please find something else to do rather than (proposal of) deletion of useful content and wasting of time. Same for other Japanese municipality-related listings here by the same User, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is a category containing two articles, with one being the main article, useful? This is a village of less than 2000 people. How does it aid navigation, which is the purpose of categorisation? AusLondonder (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 20:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PewDiePie videos

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains Scare PewDiePie (a series, not an individual video), his videography, a list, good, but that still isn't an individual video. It also has two of his songs, which themselves aren't videos, but songs that also have a music video. Then you're left with just Minecraft Multiplayer Fun (and two songs which are already in the pre-existing songs category). People including the creator Sebbog13 are likely to just simply oppose this, however, the criteria I gave is the same reason Category:Video game glitches was unexpectedly deleted and merged into some other category. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't care about the category. - Sebbog13 (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sebbog13, you are the creator of this category, consider re-writing your reply as opposed to just simply saying "I don't care" and not much else. You didn't provide a substantial amount of information regarding a category that you created yourself. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:MrBeast videos

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: This category only has three pages, one of which is a redirect, leaving you with just two articles (not redirects). Even though it has enough content (sort of) it doesn't really matter (at least to me). The redirect 1,000 Blind People See For The First Time has a draft that has been declined multiple times, so that will probably never come to be anyway. I also believe Category:People associated with MrBeast should be merged to the Mrbeast category if not just deleted entirely. Also, speaking of MrBeast, we currently have two MrBeast Navigational templates, both of which have the same content; one a side-bar template, and the other a regular navigational box. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older discussions

[edit]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions&oldid=1255390992"