Today's discussions and up to 7 days old
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions
8 to 14 days old
May 6
Category:Na'vi
- Propose deleting Category:User navi ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:User navi-1 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: "navi" is not a valid language code. The collaborative value of a category grouping users who have
a basic understanding of
a constructed language invented for a film is questionable. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment it would depend on the language community, if it were as active as the Klingon speakers or the Sindarin/Quenya speakers, or Esperanto speakers. It does have the IETF code "art-x-navi" so it would seem there would be some users. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 22:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as a wrong category type for its purpose. If anything it should be Category:Wikipedians interested in Avatar (2009 film). (I did not know what this was about until I read Na'vi language just now.) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:User en-cñ
- Propose deleting Category:User en-cñ ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 4, then recreated out-of-process one month later. The reasons for the original deletion appear to still be valid. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 22:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Polo clubs
- Propose merging Category:Polo clubs in China to Category:Polo clubs, Category:Polo in China and Category:Sports clubs in China
- Propose merging Category:Polo clubs in India to Category:Polo clubs, Category:Polo in India
- Propose merging Category:Polo clubs in New Zealand to Category:Polo clubs, Category:Polo in New Zealand and Category:Sports clubs in New Zealand
- Propose merging Category:Polo clubs in Nigeria to Category:Polo clubs, Category:Polo in Nigeria and Category:Sports clubs in Nigeria
- Propose merging Category:Polo clubs in Singapore to Category:Polo clubs, Category:Polo in Asia and Category:Sports clubs in Singapore
- Propose merging Category:Polo clubs in Venezuela to Category:Polo clubs, Category:Polo in Venezuela and Category:Sports teams in Venezuela
- Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, all have only one or two articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBchrch talk 19:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep all part of an established hierarchy of categories, and isn't polo increasing in popularity, so cats all have potential to expand. PamD 20:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is not an established tree, there are only 10 country categories including the above 6 which are heavily underpopulated. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 22:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. All talk about
cats hav[ing] potential to expand
is meaningless; this has been at CfD for two months (when one would expect it to recieve the most attention) and still haven't been populated. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Commercial seafood
- Propose merging Category:Commercial fish to Category:Edible fish
- Propose merging Category:Commercial molluscs to Category:Edible molluscs
- Propose merging Category:Commercial crustaceans to Category:Edible crustaceans
- Propose renaming Category:Commercial echinoderms to Category:Edible echinoderms
- Nominator's rationale: merge/rename, ambiguous characteristic, how should we distinguish commercial edible fish from non-commercial edible fish? All edible fish in these categories is traded and sold. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Sensible solution. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Other taxa are not segregated in this arbitrary manner. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Makes sense, including the new category Category:Edible echinoderms that fits the scheme. --AlienFood (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm neutral on the matter, but aren't the vast majority of fish edible? Is this really that defining of a characteristic for a category? Inter&anthro (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Fair question, but that requires a separate discussion about the target. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. In fact I think a better argument could be made for reverse merging Edible X to Commercial X, or even deleting some or all as WP:NONDEFINING. As mentioned above, nearly all fish are edible (from guppies to sharks), yet not all have commercial operations (e.g. devoted industries and/or specialized fishing techniques). A species of fish may be eaten occasionally or ceremonially by some people, but not farmed or hunted on larger scales. Many marine and freshwater fish are commercially caught around the world (often for human consumption) rendering the categories (if fully populated) enormous, practically useless and largely redundant to Category:Fish taxa. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support No way can we judge whether over centuries different species have been commercially exploited. Rathfelder (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Reverse-merge in light of Animalparty's !vote. Commerical is a lot more vague than edible, although personally I do not have a strong opinon on either, and both categories could do with a healthy purge. Another option is to rename into something such as Category:Aquatic species that are commercially fished or Category:Aquatic species that are commercially caught for "X", if there is a consensus for a name change. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose commercially fished sealife is not only about human edible sealife. There's other things that are fished and turned into fertilizer and animal feed and jewelry and other products -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Presumably you support reverse merge then? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- That doesn't make sense either. There are many human edible sealife that is not fished commercially, even if they are traditionally eaten. They may be not commercially viable due to population size, habitat, being an endangered species and thus illegal, etc. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Presumably you support reverse merge then? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- (as nom) I am neutral on the merge direction. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose most fish/molluscs/crustaceans/echinoderms are edible (i.e., humans can gain calories from eating them without being poisoned). Some of those that are poisonous can be detoxified with appropriate preparation (is fugu an edible fish? People do eat it without dying.) Most species in these groups aren't regularly eaten by humans for a variety of reasons. They may taste bad, be small in size, occur in small numbers, occur in places that aren't easily accessed by humans (e.g. the deep sea), etc. Commercially fished species are the ones that humans eat regularly. Edibility is too broad a criterion to be WP:DEFINING. There is some gray area with "commercial"; commercial could cover a spectrum of species sold in global markets for millions of dollars annually to species that a subsistence fisherman might occasionally sell to their neighbors. However, I think "commercial" is more manageable as a defining characteristic than "edible". I would be inclined to delete the "edible" categories, but included articles shouldn't be simply recategorized as "commercial" without confirming that the recategorization is appropriate. Also, note this previous deletion discussion:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 10#Category:Edible cephalopods. Plantdrew (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBchrch talk 19:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 22:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Political party youth groups in Northern Ireland
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 13#Category:Political party youth groups in Northern Ireland
Category:Fishing in Belgium
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Fishing in Belgium ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article and not specifically about Belgium. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Per nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Rules of National Basketball Association
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 13#Category:Rules of National Basketball Association
Category:Film series based on Valiant Comics
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 13#Category:Film series based on Valiant Comics
Category:Unofficial Shazam films
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 13#Category:Unofficial Shazam films
Category:Animated Flash (comics) films
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 13#Category:Animated Flash (comics) films
Category:Super ninja2 accounts
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 13#Category:Super ninja2 accounts
Category:Drafts about video games
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Drafts about video games to Category:Draft articles on video games
- Nominator's rationale: I don't see a need for two of these categories. ★Trekker (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support, makes sense. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Concluded webcomics
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Concluded webcomics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Ugh, why do we have a category for "Webcomics that have had a conclusion, as opposed to going on indefinite hiatus." (and a similar category for Webtoons)? We don't have categories for concluded TV shows, book or game series, and other entities. So either we are missing a big chunk of categories for 'concluded media', or this needs to go. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support As well as deleting Category:Concluded webtoons. Violates WP:CRYSTAL as there is no way to truly know whether something is permanently concluded. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Comic strips by genre
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 13#Category:Comic strips by genre
Category:Political comic strips
- Propose renaming Category:Political comic strips to Category:Comics about politics
- Nominator's rationale: Or Category:Political comics and move from Category:Comic strips by genre to Category:Comics by genre. This is the only element of small Category:Comic strips by genre that does not have an equivalent in the larger Category:Comics by genre. Additionally, while it contains comic strips, it also contains many regular comic books that are not just comic strips. Since all comic strips are comics but not all comics are comic strip, unless we want to split the category and manually check each entry, changing the focus to be wider (and representative of what's in the category already) seems simpler. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Piotrus, you say: "while it contains comic strips, it also contains many regular comic books that are not just comic strips". Can you provide one or two examples so we can better understand this nomination? gidonb (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: Refresher ping for the above. gidonb (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Gidonb Problematic entries (sample): 1) comics American Flagg!, Armageddon (underground comic), Aya of Yop City, others: 25 Images of a Man's Passion. That's just up to letter A, and we have half of the entries that don't mention the word srip within them, and seem to be regular comics. At least one more is both (Adventures of TinTin, started as strips, later became mostly known as stand-alone comics - which is arguably true for many works). Btw, see also discussion above. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: This really helps! Thank you! gidonb (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Purge, many of these strips are only incidentally about politics, e.g. The Adventures of Tintin does not belong here. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Video games based on the Joker
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Joker (character) in other media and Category:Batman video games (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Video games based on the Joker to Category:The Joker in other media and Category:Batman video games
- Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT only two members. Merging to the other parent categories is not needed since Category:Batman video games is a subcategory of all of them. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support per rationale. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:WarnerMedia
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:WarnerMedia to Category:Warner Bros. Discovery
- Nominator's rationale: As the merger of WarnerMedia and Discovery finished on April 8, 2022, the category should be merged. Ridwan97 (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Different company and history; that's not how mergers work at all, and there are companies in here that will not and cannot be a part of WBD's history. It's better to go through one-by-one and build the categories from there. Nate • (chatter) 17:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose merge. The predecessor company has its own article, and so a separate category is justified (though many articles will be in both cats, of course, but that's ok) UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Discovery, Inc.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Discovery, Inc. to Category:Warner Bros. Discovery
- Nominator's rationale: As the merger of WarnerMedia and Discovery finished on April 8, 2022, the category should be merged. Ridwan97 (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Different company and history; that's not how mergers work at all, and there are companies in here that will not and cannot be a part of WBD's history. It's better to go through one-by-one and build the categories from there. Nate • (chatter) 17:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose merge. The predecessor company has its own article, and so a separate category is justified (though many articles will be in both cats, of course, but that's ok) UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:WarnerMedia networks
- Nominator's rationale: All former channels of Discovery and WarnerMedia now under the Warner Bros. Discovery umbrella. Ridwan97 (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment This category has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Different company and history; that's not how mergers work at all, and there are companies in here that will not and cannot be a part of WBD's history. It's better to go through one-by-one and build the categories from there then let cats that are no longer in use be deleted without speedy intervention. Slow down, please, and let official corporate hierarchies become clear. Nate • (chatter) 00:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Taxa named by X
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete all (nominations merged). (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Taxa named by Nigel J. Collar ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Taxa named by Carlos Castro-Pastene ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Taxa named by Félix A. Urra ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Taxa named by Daniel Roberto Perez ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Taxa named by Desmond Allen ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Taxa named by Ivan Sázima ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Taxa named by D. Ross Robertson ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Taxa named by Attilio Arillo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Taxa named by Nathan R. Lovejoy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Taxa named by Marcelo Rodrigues de Carvalho ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Taxa named by Guillermo Luzada Ablan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Taxa named by Xiong Guo-Qiang ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Taxa named by Aurelio J. Pozzi ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Taxa named by George R. Angehr ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Taxa named by Cristiano Luís Rangel Moreira ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Taxa named by Anita George ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Taxa named by Calvin R. Bernard ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT and WP:NOTDEFINING to the taxa: the author is redlinked and category is only populated by a few articles. The author does not appear to have described any other species. Limited potential for growth. We have unanimously addressed these several times previously (here here and here, others) (and the creator of this cat is certainly aware of those discussions, but continues disruptively to create these). For more info about this and related categories created by this user, see discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 49#Bulk category creation. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete all these - it is difficult to argue that the 'author' of a creature is a defining characteristic of the creature (unlike, say, the author of a book, without whom the book would not exist). The discussion linked below (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 49#Bulk category creation) suggests a minimal condition is that (a) the author should have an article and (b) there should be at least 5 named creatures (5 is usually thought enough at cfd). These satisfy neither (a) nor (b) (assuming the category creator has done due diligence in finding Nigel Collar). There are thousands of categories in Category:Taxa by author that should be purged: I count 43 in the first column under 5 members, and we've only reached Alcala (and not counted red-linked authors). Oculi (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Moreover Simpsonichthys espinhacensis has been placed in 3 'author' categories and Camiguin hawk-owl is in 9, none supported by the text (so how is the reader to check the categories?). This is ridiculous. Oculi (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- FWIW, the infobox of Simpsonichthys espinhacensis does show the (redlinked) authors; I assume this is what the editor uses to create the "named by" categories. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn't show 'Dalton Tavares Bressane Nielsen' in full - one has to leave Wikipedia to find this. Oculi (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have the setting enabled that shows the full name when I hover over the redlink (which works since the link is piped). UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn't show 'Dalton Tavares Bressane Nielsen' in full - one has to leave Wikipedia to find this. Oculi (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- FWIW, the infobox of Simpsonichthys espinhacensis does show the (redlinked) authors; I assume this is what the editor uses to create the "named by" categories. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Moreover Simpsonichthys espinhacensis has been placed in 3 'author' categories and Camiguin hawk-owl is in 9, none supported by the text (so how is the reader to check the categories?). This is ridiculous. Oculi (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete all nominated - it looks like the creation of these (spot checks) predates the relevant discussion, so no blame attaches, but I think current opinion considers these as under-populated and -populatable. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Kinloch law enforcement
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Kinloch law enforcement ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Category contains a single article, Kinloch, Missouri, of which only a paragraph is about law enforcement. The Kinloch Police Department did seem to be the subject of a few notable controversies before it was dissolved in 2018, but I don't see how it could possibly need its own category. Apocheir (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SMALLCAT UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as a pointless category, since the one article is not about the Police department but the whole city. deven if we did have an article about the department (now dissolved), there would be little scope for expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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.
May 5
All subcategories in Category:Society by country
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename all Timrollpickering (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose renaming All subcategories in Category:Society by country
- Category:Afghan society to Category:Society of Afghanistan
- Category:Albanian society to Category:Society of Albania
- Category:Algerian society to Category:Society of Algeria
- Category:American society to Category:Society of the United States
- Category:Andorran society to Category:Society of Andorra
- Category:Angolan society to Category:Society of Angola
- Category:Antigua and Barbuda society to Category:Society of Antigua and Barbuda
- Category:Argentine society to Category:Society of Argentina
- Category:Armenian society to Category:Society of Armenia
- Category:Australian society to Category:Society of Australia
- Category:Austrian society to Category:Society of Austria
- Category:Azerbaijani society to Category:Society of Azerbaijan
- Category:Bahamian society to Category:Society of the Bahamas
- Category:Bahraini society to Category:Society of Bahrain
- Category:Bangladeshi society to Category:Society of Bangladesh
- Category:Barbadian society to Category:Society of Barbados
- Category:Belarusian society to Category:Society of Belarus
- Category:Belgian society to Category:Society of Belgium
- Category:Belizean society to Category:Society of Belize
- Category:Beninese society to Category:Society of Benin
- Category:Bhutanese society to Category:Society of Bhutan
- Category:Bissau-Guinean society to Category:Society of Guinea-Bissau
- Category:Bolivian society to Category:Society of Bolivia
- Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina society to Category:Society of Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Category:Botswana society to Category:Society of Botswana
- Category:Bougainvillean society to Category:Society of the Autonomous Region of Bougainville
- Category:Brazilian society to Category:Society of Brazil
- Category:British society to Category:Society of the United Kingdom
- Category:Bruneian society to Category:Society of Brunei
- Category:Bulgarian society to Category:Society of Bulgaria
- Category:Burkinabé society to Category:Society of Burkina Faso
- Category:Burmese society to Category:Society of Myanmar
- Category:Burundian society to Category:Society of Burundi
- Category:Cambodian society to Category:Society of Cambodia
- Category:Cameroonian society to Category:Society of Cameroon
- Category:Canadian society to Category:Society of Canada
- Category:Cape Verdean society to Category:Society of Cape Verde
- Category:Central African Republic society to Category:Society of the Central African Republic
- Category:Chadian society to Category:Society of Chad
- Category:Chilean society to Category:Society of Chile
- Category:Chinese society to Category:Society of China
- Category:Colombian society to Category:Society of Colombia
- Category:Comorian society to Category:Society of the Comoros
- Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo society to Category:Society of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
- Category:Republic of the Congo society to Category:Society of the Republic of the Congo
- Category:Costa Rican society to Category:Society of Costa Rica
- Category:Croatian society to Category:Society of Croatia
- Category:Cuban society to Category:Society of Cuba
- Category:Cypriot society to Category:Society of Cyprus
- Category:Czech society to Category:Society of the Czech Republic
- Category:Danish society to Category:Society of Denmark
- Category:Djiboutian society to Category:Society of Djibouti
- Category:Dominica society to Category:Society of Dominica
- Category:Dominican Republic society to Category:Society of the Dominican Republic
- Category:Dutch society to Category:Society of the Netherlands
- Category:East Timorese society to Category:Society of East Timor
- Category:Ecuadorian society to Category:Society of Ecuador
- Category:Egyptian society to Category:Society of Egypt
- Category:Emirati society to Category:Society of the United Arab Emirates
- Category:Equatoguinean society to Category:Society of Equatorial Guinea
- Category:Eritrean society to Category:Society of Eritrea
- Category:Estonian society to Category:Society of Estonia
- Category:Ethiopian society to Category:Society of Ethiopia
- Category:Fijian society to Category:Society of Fiji
- Category:Finnish society to Category:Society of Finland
- Category:French society to Category:Society of France
- Category:Gabonese society to Category:Society of Gabon
- Category:Gambian society to Category:Society of the Gambia
- Category:German society to Category:Society of Germany
- Category:Ghanaian society to Category:Society of Ghana
- Category:Greek society to Category:Society of Greece
- Category:Grenadian society to Category:Society of Grenada
- Category:Guatemalan society to Category:Society of Guatemala
- Category:Guinean society to Category:Society of Guinea
- Category:Guyanese society to Category:Society of Guyana
- Category:Haitian society to Category:Society of Haiti
- Category:Honduran society to Category:Society of Honduras
- Category:Hungarian society to Category:Society of Hungary
- Category:Icelandic society to Category:Society of Iceland
- Category:Indian society to Category:Society of India
- Category:Indonesian society to Category:Society of Indonesia
- Category:Iranian society to Category:Society of Iran
- Category:Iraqi society to Category:Society of Iraq
- Category:Republic of Ireland society to Category:Society of the Republic of Ireland
- Category:Israeli society to Category:Society of Israel
- Category:Italian society to Category:Society of Italy
- Category:Ivorian society to Category:Society of Ivory Coast
- Category:Jamaican society to Category:Society of Jamaica
- Category:Japanese society to Category:Society of Japan
- Category:Jordanian society to Category:Society of Jordan
- Category:Kazakhstani society to Category:Society of Kazakhstan
- Category:Kenyan society to Category:Society of Kenya
- Category:Kiribati society to Category:Society of Kiribati
- Category:Kosovan society to Category:Society of Kosovo
- Category:Kuwaiti society to Category:Society of Kuwait
- Category:Kyrgyzstani society to Category:Society of Kyrgyzstan
- Category:Laotian society to Category:Society of Laos
- Category:Latvian society to Category:Society of Latvia
- Category:Lebanese society to Category:Society of Lebanon
- Category:Lesotho society to Category:Society of Lesotho
- Category:Liberian society to Category:Society of Liberia
- Category:Libyan society to Category:Society of Libya
- Category:Liechtenstein society to Category:Society of Liechtenstein
- Category:Lithuanian society to Category:Society of Lithuania
- Category:Luxembourgian society to Category:Society of Luxembourg
- Category:Malagasy society to Category:Society of Madagascar
- Category:Malawian society to Category:Society of Malawi
- Category:Malaysian society to Category:Society of Malaysia
- Category:Maldivian society to Category:Society of the Maldives
- Category:Malian society to Category:Society of Mali
- Category:Maltese society to Category:Society of Malta
- Category:Marshallese society to Category:Society of the Marshall Islands
- Category:Mauritanian society to Category:Society of Mauritania
- Category:Mauritian society to Category:Society of Mauritius
- Category:Mexican society to Category:Society of Mexico
- Category:Federated States of Micronesia society to Category:Society of the Federated States of Micronesia
- Category:Moldovan society to Category:Society of Moldova
- Category:Monegasque society to Category:Society of Monaco
- Category:Mongolian society to Category:Society of Mongolia
- Category:Montenegrin society to Category:Society of Montenegro
- Category:Moroccan society to Category:Society of Morocco
- Category:Mozambican society to Category:Society of Mozambique
- Category:Namibian society to Category:Society of Namibia
- Category:Nauruan society to Category:Society of Nauru
- Category:Nepalese society to Category:Society of Nepal
- Category:New Zealand society to Category:Society of New Zealand
- Category:Nicaraguan society to Category:Society of Nicaragua
- Category:Nigerian society to Category:Society of Nigeria
- Category:Nigerien society to Category:Society of Niger
- Category:Niuean society to Category:Society of Niue
- Category:North Korean society to Category:Society of North Korea
- Category:North Macedonia society to Category:Society of North Macedonia
- Category:Norwegian society to Category:Society of Norway
- Category:Omani society to Category:Society of Oman
- Category:Pakistani society to Category:Society of Pakistan
- Category:Palauan society to Category:Society of Palau
- Category:Palestinian society to Category:Society of the State of Palestine
- Category:Panamanian society to Category:Society of Panama
- Category:Papua New Guinean society to Category:Society of Papua New Guinea
- Category:Paraguayan society to Category:Society of Paraguay
- Category:Peruvian society to Category:Society of Peru
- Category:Philippine society to Category:Society of the Philippines
- Category:Polish society to Category:Society of Poland
- Category:Portuguese society to Category:Society of Portugal
- Category:Qatari society to Category:Society of Qatar
- Category:Romanian society to Category:Society of Romania
- Category:Russian society to Category:Society of Russia
- Category:Rwandan society to Category:Society of Rwanda
- Category:Sahrawi society to Category:Society of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
- Category:Saint Kitts and Nevis society to Category:Society of Saint Kitts and Nevis
- Category:Saint Lucian society to Category:Society of Saint Lucia
- Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines society to Category:Society of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
- Category:Salvadoran society to Category:Society of El Salvador
- Category:Samoan society to Category:Society of Samoa
- Category:Sammarinese society to Category:Society of San Marino
- Category:São Tomé and Príncipe society to Category:Society of São Tomé and Príncipe
- Category:Saudi Arabian society to Category:Society of Saudi Arabia
- Category:Senegalese society to Category:Society of Senegal
- Category:Serbian society to Category:Society of Serbia
- Category:Seychellois society to Category:Society of Seychelles
- Category:Sierra Leonean society to Category:Society of Sierra Leone
- Category:Singaporean society to Category:Society of Singapore
- Category:Slovak society to Category:Society of Slovakia
- Category:Slovenian society to Category:Society of Slovenia
- Category:Solomon Islands society to Category:Society of the Solomon Islands
- Category:Somali society to Category:Society of Somalia
- Category:Somaliland society to Category:Society of Somaliland
- Category:South African society to Category:Society of South Africa
- Category:South Korean society to Category:Society of South Korea
- Category:South Ossetian society to Category:Society of South Ossetia
- Category:South Sudanese society to Category:Society of South Sudan
- Category:Spanish society to Category:Society of Spain
- Category:Sri Lankan society to Category:Society of Sri Lanka
- Category:Sudanese society to Category:Society of Sudan
- Category:Surinamese society to Category:Society of Suriname
- Category:Swazi society to Category:Society of Eswatini
- Category:Swedish society to Category:Society of Sweden
- Category:Swiss society to Category:Society of Switzerland
- Category:Syrian society to Category:Society of Syria
- Category:Taiwanese society to Category:Society of Taiwan
- Category:Tajikistani society to Category:Society of Tajikistan
- Category:Tanzanian society to Category:Society of Tanzania
- Category:Thai society to Category:Society of Thailand
- Category:Togolese society to Category:Society of Togo
- Category:Tongan society to Category:Society of Tonga
- Category:Transnistrian society to Category:Society of Transnistria
- Category:Trinidad and Tobago society to Category:Society of Trinidad and Tobago
- Category:Tunisian society to Category:Society of Tunisia
- Category:Turkish society to Category:Society of Turkey
- Category:Turkish Cypriot society to Category:Society of Northern Cyprus
- Category:Turkmenistan society to Category:Society of Turkmenistan
- Category:Tuvaluan society to Category:Society of Tuvalu
- Category:Ugandan society to Category:Society of Uganda
- Category:Ukrainian society to Category:Society of Ukraine
- Category:Uruguayan society to Category:Society of Uruguay
- Category:Uzbekistani society to Category:Society of Uzbekistan
- Category:Vanuatuan society to Category:Society of Vanuatu
- Category:Vatican City society to Category:Society of Vatican City
- Category:Venezuelan society to Category:Society of Venezuela
- Category:Vietnamese society to Category:Society of Vietnam
- Category:Yemeni society to Category:Society of Yemen
- Category:Zambian society to Category:Society of Zambia
- Category:Zimbabwean society to Category:Society of Zimbabwe
- Category:Tokelauan society to Category:Society of Tokelau
- Category:Greenlandic society to Category:Society of Greenland
- Category:Faroese society to Category:Society of the Faroe Islands
- Category:Cook Islands society to Category:Society of the Cook Islands
- Category:New Caledonian society to Category:Society of New Caledonia
- Category:Manx society to Category:Society of the Isle of Man
- Category:Gibraltarian society to Category:Society of Gibraltar
- Category:Channel Islands society to Category:Society of the Channel Islands
- Category:Guernsey society to Category:Society of Guernsey
- Category:Jersey society to Category:Society of Jersey
- Nominator's rationale: After Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 2#Category:Society by nationality, this is the logical next step. I propose to rename all subcategories of Category:Society by country for consistency reasons. Balkovec (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support, there is no reason to use a denonym. This is about country, not about nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I was reverting edits by the globally blocked sockpuppet Balkovec and mistakenly removed CFD tags on some categories that I have now replaced. I'm not sure of the procedure to follow at CFD for large nominations made by sockpuppets, whether this should be closed or allowed to proceed since there is support for the nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support - it is indeed the logical implication of the cited cfd 2016 September 2#Category:Society by nationality. Oculi (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support down with the tyranny of demonyms. Laurel Lodged (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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.
People from places in Iran
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 12#People from places in Iran
Category:White horses in England
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 12#Category:White horses in England
Transgender and transsexual categories
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual people to Category:Transgender people
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual Jews to Category:Transgender Jews
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual Muslims to Category:Transgender Muslims
- Propose renaming Category:Fictional transgender and transsexual characters to Category:Fictional transgender characters
- Propose renaming Category:Fictional transgender and transsexual women to Category:Fictional transgender women
- Propose renaming Category:Fictional transgender and transsexual men to Category:Fictional transgender men
- Propose renaming Category:Lists of transgender and transsexual people to Category:Lists of transgender people
- Propose renaming Category:Cultural depictions of transgender and transsexual people to Category:Cultural depictions of transgender people
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual men to Category:Transgender men
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual men by occupation to Category:Transgender men by occupation
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual men musicians to Category:Transgender male musicians
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual male actors to Category:Transgender male actors
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual women to Category:Transgender women
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual women by occupation to Category:Transgender women by occupation
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual actresses to Category:Transgender actresses
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual women musicians to Category:Transgender women musicians
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual female models to Category:Transgender female models
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual female adult models to Category:Transgender female adult models
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual people by occupation to Category:Transgender people by occupation
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual academics to Category:Transgender academics
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual actors to Category:Transgender actors
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual artists to Category:Transgender artists
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual clergy to Category:Transgender clergy
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual computer programmers to Category:Transgender computer programmers
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual DJs to Category:Transgender DJs
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual entertainers to Category:Transgender entertainers
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual comedians to Category:Transgender comedians
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual writers to Category:Transgender writers
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual sex workers to Category:Transgender sex workers
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual scientists to Category:Transgender scientists
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual politicians to Category:Transgender politicians
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual models to Category:Transgender models
- Propose renaming Category:Brazilian transsexual adult models to Category:Brazilian transgender adult models
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual media personalities to Category:Transgender media personalities
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual lawyers to Category:Transgender lawyers
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual military personnel to Category:Transgender military personnel
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual physicians to Category:Transgender physicians
- Propose renaming Category:Transgender and transsexual sportspeople to Category:Transgender sportspeople
- Nominator's rationale: "Transsexual" is a largely outdated term and maybe even borderline offensive to some. Transgender is the contemporary, broadly used umbrella term for all trans people, including people who call themselves transsexual. Even most articles concerning individual people on Wikipedia, such as List of transgender people or List of transgender political office-holders, do not include "transsexual" in the title. Renaming these clunky categories is long overdue. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging editors: User:Marcocapelle, User:Funcrunch, User:Anomalous+0, User:*Treker, User:Irn, User:Samantha Ireland, User:Slivicon, User:Bearcat, User:Gebu, User:Amakuru, User:Steel1943, User:PC78, User:Mathglot, User:WanderingWanda, User:-andreas, User:Crossroads, User:Pyxis Solitary, User:Ribbet32, User:SMcCandlish.
- Thanks but FYI I never got the ping because pings have to have the editor's signature after them to work (that's what I was told anyway). I saw this from the WikiProject posts. Gonna hold off on commenting for now. Crossroads -talk- 05:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Let's try pinging once more:
- Pinging editors:User:Funcrunch, User:Anomalous+0, User:*Treker, User:Irn, User:Samantha Ireland, User:Slivicon, User:Bearcat, User:Gebu, User:Amakuru, User:Steel1943, User:PC78, User:Mathglot, User:WanderingWanda, User:-andreas, User:Crossroads, User:Pyxis Solitary, User:Ribbet32, User:SMcCandlish. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment, an obvious counter argument is that some people in these categories self-identified as transsexual, but that argument is not strong enough for me to oppose this proposal. Nominator has a fair point too. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Support – per nom. This is generally fine, especially wrt umbrella-ness of the term transgender. For a possible sticking point, see the second paragraph of Transsexual, but I don't think that should override this for the purpose of Categorization. Mathglot (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. Not sure why I have been pinged. I have nothing to add. Steel1943 (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support The current naming scheme gives the impression that transgender and transsexual are separate things, which I don't think many would agree with these days. If there are enough people today that identify specifically as transsexual then there could be a childcategory for them.★Trekker (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support. I concur with ★Trekker. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support. At the time this tree was first developed almost 20 years ago, the typical usage of these words was somewhat different than it is now — there was more of a distinction applied in the past between "transsexual" (people who had actually transitioned) and "transgender" (all forms of gender-variant behaviour, including drag and Joan of Arc, even if it was purely situational and temporary), but that's definitely not the way the words are used today and Wikipedia should keep up with the evolution. Renaming them is indeed long overdue; the only reason I've been avoiding listing them for renaming myself is because of the sheer daunting size of the batch job involved, so I thank the nominator for taking it on. I have, however, made one small adjustment to one of the nominated categories; as formulated when I saw this, it was proposed to rename Category:Transgender and transsexual lawyers to Category:Transgender and transsexual lawyers, i.e. to do absolutely nothing, instead of the clearly intended Category:Transsexual lawyers that would actually fit the rest of the proposal, so I've modified that. Bearcat (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Support. There definitely are still some holdout old school self-described transsexuals who aren't fond of the "transgender" label, but "transsexual" is still normally understood to be a subset of "transgender" (for instance, it appears there is consensus at transsexual that we can describe it that way), or sometimes even an outdated word not to be used. Either way condensing the category name down makes sense. Endwise (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Amended below- Support just "trans", largely per Tamzin and the similar compromises we've made at trans woman and trans man. Endwise (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- While we're here, shouldn't Category:Brazilian transsexual adult models actually just be deleted? It only has one entry, Patrícia Araújo, who is already in Category:Transgender and transsexual female adult models. Endwise (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support "transgender", oppose just "trans". I oppose the idea that "Transsexual" is a largely outdated term. But it looks like redundant. Sharouser (talk) 13:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Why not simply trans? If they are distinct concepts, then trans is inclusive of both. If they are two terms for the the same concept, then trans is a shorter term that means the same thing. It's already widely used and understood as shorthand for transgender: for example, when you type it into dictionary.com, that's the definition it gives.[1]. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- @JasonAQuest: While I like that idea and use it for myself, I think for Wikipedia purposes we need to spell the word out fully, as "trans" can refer to a number of other things. Funcrunch (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support with a recommendation that a note be put on the top-level category that some people in this category identify (or identified if no longer living) specifically as transsexual. As others have noted, the term transsexual is still favored by some trans folks. Funcrunch (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Having read the various arguments for simply using "trans" I would now also be OK with this option, with a note on the category page explaining that it is an abbreviation that can mean either "transgender" or "transsexual". But I think a new proposal/CfD would need to be posted for discussion on this option. Funcrunch (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support – but with a caveat: erasing transsexuals from the gender dialog has become commonplace, and it doesn't take a psychic to see that there's no way to prevent their existence from being removed from these categories; so the caveat is what User:Funcrunch has suggested: include a note that "
some people in this category identify (or identified if no longer living) specifically as transsexual
". If transsexuals cannot be acknowledged with a notation, I withdraw my support. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)- We would probably want to go with "may identify [...] specifically as transsexual" as some/most of those categories probably contain zero such people. But I would support a disclaimer like that. Endwise (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am also in support of this. Transgender encompasses people who use the term transsexuals. This avoids the medical gatekeeping of saying in order to be trans you need to be a transsexual and in order to be transsexual you have to have already gone through a full transition. Considering those people are transgender along that entire span of transition, it makes sense to use it as the umbrella category. All transsexual people realize they are a different gender before they transition. For reference I'm a trans woman, I am on HRT, but my insurance is a nightmare and I can't currently afford to become a "true transsexual". I also understand for many the word transsexual is a point of pride to have survived fully transitioning, so including the disclaimer is great. ZonKonigin (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Well no, that's not how I see it. I see transsexual as the diagnosis. I'm a 19 y/o preop. That being said, I have sex dysphoria and so I am transsexual, I am undergoing the process to change my sex. I am not and never will be "transgender" because this is not and never has been about "gender". Transsexual, to me, is defined by the diagnosis, not by the treatment being done. FlowerGirl246 (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Great suggestion. I wholeheartedly agree. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support I oppose exclusion or complete deprecation of the term "transsexual" throughout Wikipedia, though. We have separate Wikipedia articles, transsexual and transgender, so both terms have valid uses. I recognize that transsexual is becoming a dated term in the English speaking media environment but it was an activist term of choice in living memory for the Western world, and is still a term used for some communities. I agree with others that if we remove the term "transsexual" it is because we are making the assessment that nearly people identifying as or said to be transsexual people also meet definitions of transgender. When appropriate, the biographies of anyone with this category may clarify that they used a different label. Errors are okay to acknowledge and discuss when they occur. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Responding to ping, nothing to add. –Aνδρέας talk | contributions
- Support Happy Editing--IAmChaos 00:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Simpler and more in line with the current usage of the terms. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I am NOT okay with MY identity being declared "outdated and offensive". It's offensive to erase me like this! Dakota Allie L. (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose As a transsexual I am strongly against this. For many people transgender and transsexual mean different things. Transsexual is a medical term and a term that has been used historically by advocates pushing for transsexual rights and to see that be erased would be a truly saddening thing for the transsexual community. Please think twice before sweeping our community under the rug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qqroads (talk • contribs) 22:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC) — Qqroads (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Qqroads - I understand that you have personal thoughts and feelings behind this discussion and proposal, but we need do our best to put our personal feelings aside, discuss this in a fair and neutral mindset and tone, and only take into account as to whether or not this proposed change improves the encyclopedia. Remember what we are here to do; personal feelings and emotions only degrade such discussions from being able to conclude successfully. Please know that I am not trying to be dismissive or insensitive to your feelings in any way. I don't want to even give the impression that I might be implying that your feelings are not important and that they do not matter; this is absolutely not the case. All I ask is that you perhaps re-evaluate your response, or perhaps consider stepping back if you don't feel like you can discuss this neutrally. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- ~Oshwah~ - Thank you, it is easy to get passionate about things personal to one's life experiences, so forgive the overly emotional vote. in order to take a more neutral stance, I did some additional research into the usage of these terms and I would like to bring up that the distinction between the usage of Transsexual or Transgender is largely a demographic one. In addition to the fact that the term Transsexual is more common among older generations, there are certain regions where Transsexual is more commononly used than Transgender. Brazil for example has significantly more Google searches for Transsexual than Transgender. However, I did also find that in nearly all countries the usage of the term "trans" in Google searches vastly dwarfs both the terms transgender and transsexual. Therefore I propose if the changes are to be made to shorten the titles of these articles and yet remain as accessible as possible in terms of SEO, I believe replacing the phrasing "Transgender and Transsexual" with "Trans" would do a better job of satisfying both goals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qqroads (talk • contribs) 05:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I am echoing Qquroads who said, As a transsexual I am strongly against this. For many people transgender and transsexual mean different things. Transsexual is a medical term and a term that has been used historically by advocates pushing for transsexual rights and to see that be erased would be a truly saddening thing for the transsexual community. Please think twice before sweeping our community under the rug." And am adding this link to an essay to explain that there is currently a political effort to erase transsexual as a category and silence transsexuals as a population, so as to privilege non-gender-dyphoric people who wish to be considered transgender and non-binary https://sillyolme.wordpress.com/2020/09/14/the-silent-transsexual/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DisplayGeek (talk • contribs) 22:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- This article does not deny that the term transgender is currently used to include people who identify as transsexual, it merely regrets that the term is also used for people who do not belong according the author. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yep, we've basically got an unwanted word forced on us. I feel much the same about "queer" (a legit slur). Dakota Allie L. (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- DisplayGeek - As I said above to Qqroads, we need do our best to put our personal feelings aside, and discuss this proposal in a fair and neutral tone. Does this proposed change benefit the encyclopedia? Does it improve the quality of the encyclopedia? These are the things we should be discussing... Anything outside of that only degrades the discussion and makes it harder for participants to stay focused as well. Our personal opinions and feelings, and why this proposal does not align with them, is not going to determine whether or not the proposal improves Wikipedia. All I ask is that you perhaps re-evaluate your response, or perhaps consider stepping back if you don't feel like you can discuss this neutrally. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- This article does not deny that the term transgender is currently used to include people who identify as transsexual, it merely regrets that the term is also used for people who do not belong according the author. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support I am a trans woman who experiences dysphoria and I've undergone hormonal, social, and surgical transition. The term Transgender is intended to encapsulate the experiences of Transsexuals, not be different from or exclusive of them. Susan Stryker's Transgender_History_(book) contains a history of the term and the broader trans community accepts its use. The use of transsexual over transgender (insisting you are a transsexual and not transgender) has a political element, as above user DisplayGeek notes. The purpose of this use is to delegitimize some trans people, including people who undergo hormonal, surgical, and social transition, by claiming they're not truly transsexual, just engaging in transvestic fetishism. DisplayGeek is the author of a book & blog that attempts to do that (which she linked). I would advise not paying mind to people who say they are transsexual, but not transgender, as they don't reflect the larger consensus of the community, and largely try to draw said distinction as a way to invalidate the identities of others. Evilagram (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment A Twitter thread posted on April 10 called attention to this CfD and tagged a number of people, saying "Let's band together and protest this unjust change!" (I already !voted on this, just pointing it out.) Funcrunch (talk) 06:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment If this absolutely must be, then mayhaps we can settle on "trans people". If that, then I will give my support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakota Allie L. (talk • contribs) 09:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oop, forgot to sign this. Dakota Allie L. (talk) 09:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Transsex/Transsexual is a medical term, while Transgender is largely an umbrella term and/or a social movement. Erasing the term Transsex/Transsexual erases the lives and experiences of those who use it, and applying the term "Transgender" retroactively to those who did not use it or even strongly opposed its use is honestly a bit offensive. Memories of (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I've alerted WikiProject LGBT Studies to this discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support partially. Move to Trans people. The "Gender" and "sex" is extra; it's understood.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Oppose;Neutral. Support using Trans man/woman where possible. The current titles don't strike me as problematic. I'm perfectly happy to let transsexual go the way of the dodo (alongside Asperger syndrome and mental retardation, and other such DSM-isms), but it is nonetheless a label that a handful of biography subjects in this category insists on (only example I could find was Buck Angel). Including both terms avoids that controversy, at the expense of slightly obtuse category titles. There is apparent consensus for describing subjects (both transsexual and transgender) as trans people, so I would support changing the set of categories which specifically use the phrase "Transgender and transexual men/women" to use "trans" instead (e.g. Category:Trans women, Category:Trans men musicians). RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 20:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)- I'm also Asperger and as well dislike how my OTHER condition has also been deemed "outdated and offensive". The woke world truly just won't stop merging me with other things in hopes of making more deviant people seem acceptable...
- Personal grievance aside, I'd well support the decision to just list it as "trans". "Trans" can still be shorthand for "transsexual", so that wording would not be offensive. Dakota Allie L. (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Dropping the largely outdated "transsexual" term is appropriate, per others above. Zaathras (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- My condition is not outdated. Not all TS are genderists and gender ideology supporters. Dakota Allie L. (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. The Oxford English Dictionary is pretty up to date for those of you who want more solid footing than unilateral assertions. Quoting from "transgender". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.), last updated in March 2022:
- On transgender as an adjective (sense A1):
Designating a person whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond to that person's sex at birth, or which does not otherwise conform to conventional notions of sex and gender.
Although now typically used as an umbrella term which includes any or all non-conventional gender identities, in wider use transgender is sometimes used synonymously with the more specific terms transsexual or transvestite.
- On transgender as a noun (sense B1):
A transgender person; (sometimes) spec. a person who is transsexual or transvestite. Also occasionally (with the and plural agreement): transgender people as a class.
- JBchrch talk 00:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not terribly relevant, and unless you're on-stage Doing the Timewarp Again "transvestite" is at best obsolete, at worst derogatory. Zaathras (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think the glossary of terms in the GLAAD Media Reference Guide is a better source of definitions for this topic. Funcrunch (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- They act like all transsexuals are comfortable being called transgender. They act like we all support genderism. Dakota Allie L. (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not all transsexuals have a "gender identity", nor do we all believe in "gender", so the "umbrella" kind of falls flat. Dakota Allie L. (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Saying that there is an "umbrella term" does not mean that it covers 100% of the people, it just means most. Your strident opinion seems to be a bit out-of-step with how sources out there treat and cover this topic area. It's perfectly ok to hold an unpopular opinion; it isn't fine to think you can impose it on others. Zaathras (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- My unpopular opinion is backed by neuroscience. Dakota Allie L. (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- The discussion is not about science, but rather about language/terminology: which term is commonly used? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- A lot of current terminology is changed to appeal to activists and social justice warriors. Dakota Allie L. (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- The discussion is not about science, but rather about language/terminology: which term is commonly used? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- My unpopular opinion is backed by neuroscience. Dakota Allie L. (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Saying that there is an "umbrella term" does not mean that it covers 100% of the people, it just means most. Your strident opinion seems to be a bit out-of-step with how sources out there treat and cover this topic area. It's perfectly ok to hold an unpopular opinion; it isn't fine to think you can impose it on others. Zaathras (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Just using "trans" has been mentioned a few times as an alternative. However that would be too colloquial and ambiguous imho. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Reliable sources I've seen seem to be consistent about transgender being an umbrella label that includes transsexual. If there are reliable, due sources that distinguish it, I would consider changing to Oppose. Other reasons shared for opposing seem to drift into righting great wrongs or even the fringe anti-gender movement. Using "trans" instead would also seem fine to me. It may not be used as commonly outside of LGBTQ+ communities, but we can fairly easily explain that on the category page, and we do have pages like trans woman that explain the term. Politanvm talk 14:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Most people who consider ourselves transsexual do so BECAUSE of our viewpoint that "transgender" is insulting, inaccurate, and political, and that our issue is that of a medical condition not one of "identity". Therefore to include us under the "umbrella" is not correct. Yes, I'd be fine if we just agree on "trans". I think the context makes it obvious what is being said.
- And yes I'm against "gender" because it doesn't exist, it was made up by John Money to keep transsexualism as a psychological illness and to support nurture over nature theory. I don't think this viewpoint is fringe. Dakota Allie L. (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- As someone who does a lot of work on Wikipedia writing about the doctors and conversion therapists who were involved in the early history of trans care, I very much understand your disapproval of John Money (I updated his page to detail some of the awful experiments he carried out) and the concept of our "gender" changing instead of our body/sex changing to match our internal sense of self. However, in terms of babies and bathwater, John Money also created the term sexual orientation. You're absolutely correct his original idea was that a person's "gender identity" was a purely social construct based in nurture, that could be shaped and changed with parental/sociological input, but that was disproved by his own experiments and all later ones, which showed that despite his attempts to change a person's "gender"/"gendered sense of self" (as with Reimer), a person seems to be born with a "gender" which will cause them dysphoria if misaligned with their body/sex. While gender, like race, is a social construct (an arbitrary divider we create based off observable features and stereotypes) and we're all simply human, social constructs are still real and we feel their consequences in the real world. Gender became an important analytical tool of feminism since it gave a language for shared humanity not based on seemingly permanent innate divide between "types" of people but between cultural constructions of them. While "female" and "male" sexes exist for simple example (no time for a full intersex accounting), the simple maleness/femaleness doesn't cause sexism or oppression, but how we group people into categories based on their assigned sex at birth as "gender." More than that, different genders exist across different cultures anyways, often more than our 2. With trans people, while we may biologically be who we are just as much as cis people, also just like everyone else we are pulled into gender in some way or another and have to grapple with it. We're more than medical diagnoses, while there are biological causes for trans, intersex, and cis people being most comfortable in a "male" or "female" body or anywhere in between, we still see the effects of that in the world as gender. As a trans woman, I was born a biological/neurological woman and I'll die one, the fact the wrong chromosome got swapped and the doctors said I was a boy notwithstanding. Who I was internally didn't change, I just stopped hiding her and soon after started hormones. While I used to be gendered as a boy I'm now gendered a girl because that's how people see/read and treat me based off my appearance. My internal sex and sense of self, the various chromosomes and genes involved with it that made me a woman, never changed, I just got a little help with a hormone problem. TheTranarchist (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yep my internal self never changed. Therefore no "gender" ever changed. Transsexual. Dakota Allie L. (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- My internal sense of self never changed, my sex/genes didn't change, but how people gender me changed. I've always been a woman, the only change was in people recognizing it. Therefore, no biology/sex ever changed. I'm transgender, you're transsexual, we're both trans and trying to dunk on the "not really trans" doesn't help anyone. TheTranarchist (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yep my internal self never changed. Therefore no "gender" ever changed. Transsexual. Dakota Allie L. (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- As someone who does a lot of work on Wikipedia writing about the doctors and conversion therapists who were involved in the early history of trans care, I very much understand your disapproval of John Money (I updated his page to detail some of the awful experiments he carried out) and the concept of our "gender" changing instead of our body/sex changing to match our internal sense of self. However, in terms of babies and bathwater, John Money also created the term sexual orientation. You're absolutely correct his original idea was that a person's "gender identity" was a purely social construct based in nurture, that could be shaped and changed with parental/sociological input, but that was disproved by his own experiments and all later ones, which showed that despite his attempts to change a person's "gender"/"gendered sense of self" (as with Reimer), a person seems to be born with a "gender" which will cause them dysphoria if misaligned with their body/sex. While gender, like race, is a social construct (an arbitrary divider we create based off observable features and stereotypes) and we're all simply human, social constructs are still real and we feel their consequences in the real world. Gender became an important analytical tool of feminism since it gave a language for shared humanity not based on seemingly permanent innate divide between "types" of people but between cultural constructions of them. While "female" and "male" sexes exist for simple example (no time for a full intersex accounting), the simple maleness/femaleness doesn't cause sexism or oppression, but how we group people into categories based on their assigned sex at birth as "gender." More than that, different genders exist across different cultures anyways, often more than our 2. With trans people, while we may biologically be who we are just as much as cis people, also just like everyone else we are pulled into gender in some way or another and have to grapple with it. We're more than medical diagnoses, while there are biological causes for trans, intersex, and cis people being most comfortable in a "male" or "female" body or anywhere in between, we still see the effects of that in the world as gender. As a trans woman, I was born a biological/neurological woman and I'll die one, the fact the wrong chromosome got swapped and the doctors said I was a boy notwithstanding. Who I was internally didn't change, I just stopped hiding her and soon after started hormones. While I used to be gendered as a boy I'm now gendered a girl because that's how people see/read and treat me based off my appearance. My internal sex and sense of self, the various chromosomes and genes involved with it that made me a woman, never changed, I just got a little help with a hormone problem. TheTranarchist (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support, as per above mentioned sources and general shift in usage, I support the shortening change to 'transgender' with the note about how transsexual people may not consider themselves transgender, or 'trans' since that also works as an umbrella. In my experiences (and historical analysis), "transsexual" is largely used by older trans people while "transgender" is more often used by the younger ones. Similarly, older gay/lesbian people sometimes use homosexual while younger ones use gay/lesbian. Even with with the historical associations with the medical community, arguing whether transgender (identity term) and transsexual (original medical term) are fundamentally different feels like arguing about whether people who call themselves gay (identity term) are really homosexual (original medical term) or vice versa. And with both gay/homosexual and transgender/transsexual, there isn't going to be anything fundamentally different about the people who choose either term, as there are underlying biological bases for who we are that don't disappear due the choice of term. Of course, for public figures who explicitly called themselves transsexual as opposed to transgender we should include and respect that in their articles. Honestly, it's just sad to see trans people fighting over just terminology when we get treated the same at the end of the day (accounting for race, class, gender, etc). Final note, for the sake of cleaning Wikipedia a little and shortening those overly long links, we should simplify them while trying to remain inclusive. TheTranarchist (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist
- I'm 19 years old. Dakota Allie L. (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- And no, it isn't really the same underlying biology. Perverted transgenderists who grow boobs and keep their penis aren't the same as transsexual women. Dakota Allie L. (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep it civil. Politanvm talk 18:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Alright. I still think fully-transitioning transsexuals and "non-ops" should be acknowledged as different categories. Because they are. Dakota Allie L. (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- "Gay" and "homosexual" are essentially literal synonyms. But "transgender" is "inclusive" of drag queens, part-time transvestites, "non-binary", queers, crossdressers, nonconforming people, non-ops, she-males, etc. Whereas transsexual quite literally only includes people with Harry Benjamin Syndrome (neurological condition). These are certainly not the same category nor synonyms. Dakota Allie L. (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- There's a lot to unpack here:
- 1) FYI, I'm an 18 year old trans/transgender lesbian saving up for bottom surgery. If I was born in a different time and place, I may have called myself a transsexual lesbian, or a transvestite since that was the term for trans lesbians (not "true" enough transsexuals).
- 2) I consider myself nonbinary in the sense that gender roles are a social construct I don't need to hold myself to, and also a woman since that's how I'm read and how I experience life and frankly want to fully transition.
- 3) I consider myself queer in the sense that it's an umbrella term for LGBT people and I'm two of those.
- 4) In terms of gender noncomformity, do I suddenly stop being a trans woman the second I put on jeans and a flannel shirt? Are cis people who are gender noncomforming not actually their gender? Butches actually men? Twinks actually women? Someone can have a gender and still not conform to all the societal expectations placed on their appearance...
- 5) We should both know trans people historically found safe havens in drag culture. Even today, one of my best friends is a trans woman and a drag queen since she's got bills to pay.
- 6) Last I checked, transgender doesn't actually include cross-dressers, unless you're a trans person cosplaying as your assigned gender at birth or something.
- 7) Literally only ever heard she-male being used ironically by trans people. It's used as either a slur or a porn category by cis people.
- 8) A brief look at Transsexual shows that Harry Benjamin began to use the term gender identity. The page also contains information about the syndrome, it's criticism, and more modern coverage of biological markers.
- 9) I know a lot of trans people who are comfortable with various bodily configurations. The idea that a person must "fully" transition to be valid is just the same the idea that aesthetic intersex surgery for "normal" genitalia is humane or necessary. Given your understandable feeling on John Money, I don't think you believe the latter the case. I know a lot of people who use transgender, and a few who use transsexual (usually trans elders), and the commonalities far outweigh any differences. TheTranarchist (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep it civil. Politanvm talk 18:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think it's vital that identity categories be used for people that actually identify with those labels. As far as I am aware, folks who identify uniquely as transsexual are a minority within a minority, but they do exist. I think the spirit of WP:CATLGBT applies, though (the shortcut name not withstanding) it's written specifically about sexuality and not gender. The benefit to the renaming seems to be concision, but concision outside of the actual bodies of articles is not a major concern. The tradeoff in terms of precision and offense is not worth it. I would support splitting each category into a Transgender X and Transsexual X category, with both likely to be under the parent LGBT X category. Please do not interpret my !vote as an endorsement of the vitriolic attacks on transgender people presented above. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support "trans", oppose just "transgender". Discussions like this inevitably turn political, but it doesn't matter who's right or wrong in which identities. What matters is not miscategorizing anyone. Some trans people identify as "transsexual" and not "transgender". Some people may meet the academic definition for "transsexual" but not "transgender" (although that's rare). Our articles trans woman and trans man work around this nuance by using the shared abbreviation for both terms in their titles. These categories should do the same. Splitting the category isn't the worst thing in the world, but for most trans people the transgender/transsexual distinction isn't important, so I think that would be more trouble than it's worth. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- If this is the decision we make, I would be fine with it. Dakota Allie L. (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The above is a good point and if the categories and articles were reorganized to recognize that transgender is an umbrella term that contains in it Transsexual, and all other forms of gender nonconformity then I'd fully support this. The problem is it likely will not be as many up and comming people feel that the term transsexual is offensive and even call those of us who use it "transmedicalist" or "Truscum". --Hfarmer (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Transsexual is a term for how a great many people identify what they are separate from being transgender. IF this was going to go with a overall overhaul of the Wikipedia on this then it might be fine. This however is Wikipedia it doesn't work that way. Every article has people who keep an eye on it and most of them have attained a sort of meta-stability. It would be very hard to change that stable state, and if we upset it the result might be worse. Ideally category transgender people would contain subcategories Transsexual ( for medical transitoners anyone who has had surgery and hormones), Transgender (for those who have not), non binary etc. The PROBLEM arises in that since many youngsters feel that transsexual is offensive it will become about having a specific source where the person who is trans says "I am a transsexual". Since of course we would not want to put something pejorative in there. This change in point of view would be a slow death of the term transsexual before its time. Maybe in 20-40 more years their point of view will rein. By then generation double Z will find their terms offensive. --Hfarmer (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support transgender and transsexual can be interchangeable sometimes, I don't find transsexual offensive or a slur, however I see transgender is an umbrella. And I also supporting using just "trans..." where possible (trans men, trans women). I'm a bit neutral, I like both ways, but a change is also nice. Tazuco (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose If we move it to just "trans", I'd be okay with that. However, once again erasing transsexuals by forcing us under "transgender" is not okay in my book. This erasure has consumed enough of modern politics. FlowerGirl246 (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC) — FlowerGirl246 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Oppose I think its important we keep medical terminology intact for those of us that prefer it. Not all of us desire to be lumped under political "identity" terms. Transsexual is a medical term, transgender is a political identity. "Transsexual" remaining in use is necessary to acknwoledge those of us who treat being trans as a medical condition and not as an identity. FriskyTGirl60 (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC) — FriskyTGirl60 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Support - Using both "Transgender" and "Transsexual" in one category name is redundant. I agree with the point made by ★Trekker. — Golden call me maybe? 22:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support This category rename should have been done a long time ago, honestly. Transsexual hasn't been a term in common use for a number of years outside of some very specific scientific/medical circles. Any needed usage of the term as a category would be more useful in its own separate category anyways. Also, I presume from the large number of SPAs showing up in this discussion, including those with entirely new accounts solely for commenting here, that this CfD was linked to somewhere else on the internet? SilverserenC 23:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, only look me a moment to find one of the sources of new account canvassing. SilverserenC 23:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Silver seren: I posted a link to that Twitter thread awhile back FWIW (easy to miss with the volume of discussion here). Funcrunch (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have been tempted, after reading the discussion, to tag the more obvious spa/canvassed editors. Primarily those who have only commented on this CfD, and whose account was created shortly after that Twitter thread. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- I considered this as well, but I figured most of the SPA comments are from Dakota Allie L. (talk · contribs) and they pretty much speak for themselves (she was indeffed today as a result). Funcrunch (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- She was certainly the most active SPA, but I have counted at least three or four others who were canvassed by her. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- I considered this as well, but I figured most of the SPA comments are from Dakota Allie L. (talk · contribs) and they pretty much speak for themselves (she was indeffed today as a result). Funcrunch (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, only look me a moment to find one of the sources of new account canvassing. SilverserenC 23:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support "Trans" per Tamzin, or if that fails "transgender". The current state of the redirects is overly verbose. Trans is an umbrella term that encompasses both transgender and transsexual. Arguably transgender also is an umbrella term in its modern usage, though there is as has been demonstrated here a minority who disagree with that and consider it erasure. Using "trans" instead of "transgender and transsexual" or "transgender" has the benefit of being more concise without losing any precision. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support "Trans" per others. I don't mean to offend anyone, but "transgender" is my second choice because it is the umbrella term and "transsexual" is very controversial in the LGBT community today. Pipenswick (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Transgender and Transsexual are used interchangeably, and using both in one category name seems redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reesequillian (talk • contribs) 21:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC) — Reesequillian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Neutral I came into this discussion thinking that "transsexual" was an outdated term, but comments to the contrary above have convinced me that there is a visible minority that may feel erased by its subsuming into the umbrella category "transgender." Would support "trans" as an inclusive catch-all term whose capaciousness seems likely to encompass future changes in language around this issue as well. HappyBear5000 20:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. FlowerGirl246 (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Note As the last contribution to this discussion was over a week and a half ago, and due to the SPA/canvassing concerns, I have requested an closure from an experienced closer at WP:CR. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support for all the reasons above, but in addressing the other concerns raised by Dakota Allie L., Qqroads, DisplayGeek, Memories of, Hfarmer, FlowerGirl246, and FriskyTGirl60, I think separate new categories should be made for strictly transsexual people and fictional characters where relevant after the split has taken place, as I see Firefangledfeathers also directly proposed above. Lashana Lynch (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- I support creating other transsexual categories apart from transgender after moving — Tazuco 20:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- I support this wholeheartedly. FlowerGirl246 (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I support creating other transsexual categories apart from transgender after moving — Tazuco 20:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Finding it mighty suspicious that several redlinked-name "new" users have found their way to this discussion. Zaathras (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are two main options: split the category into separate transgender and transsexual categories, or rename to just transgender, possibly with a note to the effect that some people in the category may identify as transsexual. A less-discussed option is to rename to just trans, as an umbrella term meaning both transgender and transsexual.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)- Now, this may be why you and I have problems here. I consider my transsexualism a material reality, being on estrogen and hoping for surgeries soon. I consider what someone "identifies as" to be very meaningless. FriskyTGirl60 (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Splitting is a really bad idea, it would largely mean splitting people of older generations from people of newer generations because of a shift of terminology in the course of time. Ultimately I think keeping the categories and doing nothing is probably the best solution.Marcocapelle (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm 19 and call myself transsexual. I refuse to use the new-age terminology. There are also many younger individuals who call themselves transsexual (e.g. Blaire White). So no, not necessarily. FriskyTGirl60 (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support transgender, second option trans. The status quo is not an option. As per glaad "Do not use transsexual to describe a person unless it is a word they use to describe themself." - so per WP:BLP we should not be putting a category with "transsexual" in it on a trans person's page unless they specifically identify as such. We can add a node re "transsexual", or create a subcategory if there's enough demand for such. I think trans is a bit informal and may be confusing by itself for a general audience. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I would be incredibly offended to be called "transgender". I don't think what GLAAD says is proper speak for every trans person in existence. I prefer to be called transsexual. FriskyTGirl60 (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- There are a few exclusive same-sex attracted people who reject the labels "gay" and "lesbian" as well, but Wikipedia refuses to use the term "Homosexual people" in categories so I doubt you're doing to convince editors here to reject the majority nomenclature in this case either. You're an exception and transgender is the WP:COMMONNAME.★Trekker (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support transgender, as the current category names are bound to cause more confusion than less. I understand the urge to use "trans," a word I prefer, but in order to avoid people requesting the category be changed to trans* in the future, using "transgender" makes more change. GLAAD, of course, has a good information on this topic, and as ★Trekker notes above, "transgender" is the common name, NOT "transexual". In the past, that was different, but we are in 2022 now, not 1992. I am not at all surprised by the drive-by editing on here by red-link accounts who likely never contribute on here beyond this discussion. Historyday01 (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Staryi Sambir Raion
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 12#Category:Staryi Sambir Raion
Category:Villages in Livonia
- Propose renaming Category:Villages in Livonia to Category:Livonian villages
- Nominator's rationale: Livonia is a wider region than the Livonian Coast, which is the only place still inhabited by ethnic Livonians. The proposed name fits in a better way the category's scope. Super Ψ Dro 15:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Alternatively, it could also be renamed to Category:Livonian Coast, as the Livonian Coast's article is also within that category. Super Ψ Dro 15:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Rename either way, the current name is too imprecise. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe Category:Villages of the Livonian Coast would be the clearest (combining the two alternatives offered by nominator). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Plays about The Holocaust
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename Timrollpickering (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Plays about The Holocaust to Category:Plays about the Holocaust
- Nominator's rationale: Technical rename per other categories like this, t is not capitalized in 'the'. (ex. Category:Poems about the Holocaust, Category:Works about the Holocaust). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support per WP:C2A, should have been speedied. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Leeds and Grenville County Roads
- 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: result Timrollpickering (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC) Delete
- Propose deleting Category:Leeds and Grenville County Roads ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Category that consists solely of a list and six redirects to that same list. This is not navigationally useful; the list could legitimately be added to Category:Transport in Leeds and Grenville United Counties (which I have now done), but we don't need a dedicated subcategory just for a bunch of redirects. Bearcat (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, the category suggests there is quite some content while in fact there is not, that is merely frustrating for anyone who wants to know more about the topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Yuri (genre) comics
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 12#Category:Yuri (genre) comics
Category:Rajput Princesses
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename Timrollpickering (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Rajput Princesses to Category:Rajput princesses
- Nominator's rationale: Should fit under C2C and C25? I don't actually know this process at all, but the person who made it mistitled it, put in a malformed request, and since then the only person to edit has been me. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- This was supposed to be a speedy request, but either Twinkle doesn't handle those and I forgot to check or I just forgot to click a button somewhere. I'm about to fall asleep, so I'll deal with this tomorrow if nobody else has. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
I initially made the request after I realized I made a mistake in the title. Since I was new at the time, I probably wrongly categorized it. I hope the title is changed and matched with other pages. Manavati (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support - correct capitalisation. Recommend speedy closure. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:ISO 639 name from code templates
- Propose renaming Category:ISO 639 name from code templates to Category:ISO 639 templates
- Nominator's rationale: The once many templates were reduced to three and merged into this category. This should be renamed to reflect that. Gonnym (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- As there are only three templates, the category may also be merged to Category:Wikipedia multilingual support templates. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:OCN television dramas
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 12#Category:OCN television dramas
May 4
Winter Olympics by year stubs
- Propose deleting Category:Winter Olympics by year stubs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Template:1924-winter-Olympic-stub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Template:1928-winter-Olympic-stub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Template:1932-winter-Olympic-stub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Template:1936-winter-Olympic-stub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Template:1948-winter-Olympic-stub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Template:1952-winter-Olympic-stub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Template:1956-winter-Olympic-stub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Template:1960-winter-Olympic-stub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Template:1964-winter-Olympic-stub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Template:1968-winter-Olympic-stub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Template:1972-winter-Olympic-stub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Template:1976-winter-Olympic-stub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Template:1980-winter-Olympic-stub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Template:1984-winter-Olympic-stub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Template:1988-winter-Olympic-stub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Template:1992-winter-Olympic-stub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Template:1994-winter-Olympic-stub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Template:1998-winter-Olympic-stub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Template:2002-winter-Olympic-stub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Template:2006-winter-Olympic-stub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Template:2010-winter-Olympic-stub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Template:2014-winter-Olympic-stub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Template:2018-winter-Olympic-stub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: None of these stub types are used on more than 60 articles, and some do not have corresponding stub categories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per BrownHairedGirl. Category overload does exist, and the idea of deleting all these cats is nonsensical. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. Category:Winter Olympics by year stubs+subcats contains 447 articles, so deleting all the templates and the category seems bonkers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: do you mean "keep" or do you mean "merge"? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Songs about wealth
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 11#Category:Songs about wealth
Seafood companies
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge all. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Seafood companies of China to Category:Seafood companies of Asia, Category:Fishing in China and Category:Food and drink companies of China
- Propose merging Category:Seafood companies of India to Category:Seafood companies of Asia, Category:Fishing in India and Category:Food and drink companies of India
- Propose merging Category:Seafood companies of Russia to Category:Seafood companies of Europe, Category:Fishing in Russia and Category:Food and drink companies of Russia
- Propose merging Category:Seafood companies of South Korea to Category:Seafood companies of Asia, Category:Fishing in South Korea and Category:Food and drink companies of South Korea
- Propose merging Category:Seafood companies of Taiwan to Category:Seafood companies of Asia and Category:Food and drink companies of Taiwan
- Propose merging Category:Seafood companies of Thailand to Category:Seafood companies of Asia, Category:Fishing in Thailand and Category:Food and drink companies of Thailand
- Propose merging Category:Seafood companies of Vietnam to Category:Seafood companies of Asia, Category:Fishing in Vietnam and Category:Food and drink companies of Vietnam
- Propose merging Category:Seafood companies of the Faroe Islands to Category:Seafood companies of Europe, Category:Food and drink in the Faroe Islands and Category:Companies of the Faroe Islands
- Propose merging Category:Seafood companies of Greenland to Category:Seafood companies of North America, Category:Fishing in Greenland and Category:Food and drink companies of Greenland
- Propose merging Category:Seafood companies of Italy to Category:Seafood companies of Europe, Category:Fishing in Italy and Category:Food and drink companies of Italy
- Propose merging Category:Seafood companies of Sweden to Category:Seafood companies of Europe and Category:Food and drink companies of Sweden
- Propose merging Category:Seafood companies of Madagascar to Category:Fishing in Africa and Category:Companies of Madagascar
- Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, these all contain only one or two articles. The number of seafood company articles in Wikipedia is low altogether (not even 100 worldwide). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Oculi (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Dresses worn on the red carpet at the Academy Awards ceremonies
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename Timrollpickering (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessarily long category name. It doesn't really make sense to distinguish/disambiguate between "Dresses worn on the red carpet at the Academy Awards ceremonies" and "Dresses worn at the Academy Awards ceremonies". Most people wear one outfit for both the red carpet and the ceremony, so there's no real separation between the concepts. Even when people do outfit swaps, the media tends to refer to red carpet outfits and ceremony outfits interchangeably as "Oscars dresses" and "Academy Awards dresses." ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- On reflection (not that I think anyone will mind since there's been no response to this anyway) I've changed the target to "outfits worn" rather than "dresses worn", in order to be a) gender neutral and b) cover Autograph suit of Sandy Powell and the eventual article I'm going to write about Cher's stupid and wonderful 1986 Oscars getup. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Infobox musical artist with missing or invalid Background field
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 11#Category:Infobox musical artist with missing or invalid Background field
Category:Wikipedian vector graphics editors
- 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: no consensus (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Wikipedian vector graphics editors to Category:User svg
- Nominator's rationale: These two categories seem to have identical purposes. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 02:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- 'Oppose the userbox clearly states SVG is for Scalable Vector Graphics, and not vector graphics in general. I don't see how they are identical. SVG isn't the only vector graphics container format 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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.
Reality television contestants by country
- Propose renaming Category:Reality television participants by country to Category:Reality television contestants by country and series
- Propose renaming Category:Participants in American reality television series to Category:Contestants in American reality television by series
- Propose renaming Category:Participants in Australian reality television series to Category:Contestants in Australian reality television by series
- Propose renaming Category:Participants in Argentine reality television series to Category:Contestants in Argentine reality television by series
- Propose renaming Category:Participants in British reality television series to Category:Contestants in British reality television by series
- Propose renaming Category:Participants in Bulgarian reality television series to Category:Contestants in Bulgarian reality television by series
- Propose renaming Category:Participants in Burmese reality television series to Category:Contestants in Burmese reality television by series
- Propose renaming Category:Participants in Canadian reality television series to Category:Contestants in Canadian reality television by series
- Propose renaming Category:Participants in Chinese reality television series to Category:Contestants in Chinese reality television by series
- Propose renaming Category:Participants in French reality television series to Category:Contestants in French reality television by series
- Propose renaming Category:Participants in German reality television series to Category:Contestants in German reality television by series
- Propose renaming Category:Participants in Indian reality television series to Category:Contestants in Indian reality television by series
- Propose renaming Category:Participants in Irish reality television series to Category:Contestants in Irish reality television by series
- Propose renaming Category:Participants in Malaysian reality television series to Category:Contestants in Malaysian reality television by series
- Propose renaming Category:Participants in New Zealand reality television series to Category:Contestants in New Zealand reality television by series
- Propose renaming Category:Participants in Norwegian reality television series to Category:Contestants in Norwegian reality television by series
- Propose renaming Category:Participants in Philippine reality television series to Category:Contestants in Philippine reality television by series
- Propose renaming Category:Participants in South Korean reality television series to Category:Contestants in South Korean reality television by series
- Propose renaming Category:Participants in Swedish reality television series to Category:Contestants in Swedish reality television by series
- Propose renaming Category:Participants in Taiwanese reality television series to Category:Contestants in Taiwanese reality television by series
- Propose renaming Category:Participants in Thai reality television series to Category:Contestants in Thai reality television by series
- Propose renaming Category:Participants in Turkish reality television series to Category:Contestants in Turkish reality television by series
- Propose deleting Category:Participants in Brazilian reality television series
- Propose deleting Category:Participants in Colombian reality television series
- Propose deleting Category:Participants in Italian reality television series
- Propose deleting Category:Participants in Kenyan reality television series
- Propose deleting Category:Participants in Nigerian reality television series
- Propose deleting Category:Participants in Pakistani reality television series
- Propose deleting Category:Participants in Singapore reality television series
- Nominator's rationale: Convert to container categories, following precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 5#Category:Participants in British reality television series. Those that do not have sub-cats by series should be deleted as WP:SOFTDELETE unless and until such sub-cats are created. – Fayenatic London 18:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support, per nom, per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose renaming to contestants - A contestant is a participant in a game show or contest (which redirects to competition). Not all of these appear to be competition-based. Reality television would appear to be much broader than that. Maybe the whole tree could use better specification in naming? - jc37 03:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- In practice nearly every reality tv show is somewhat competition-based. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not according to Reality_television#Subgenres. - jc37 14:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- In practice nearly every reality tv show is somewhat competition-based. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose, but I would support splitting out subcategories for those who are expressly contestants. Note that participants can include figures like Simon Cowell and Gordon Ramsey (who are judges on their shows, but not contestants), the Kardashians, the Jersey Shore cast, and others who participate in a non-contestant capacities. BD2412 T 03:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Judges and other non-contestants should be removed as non-defining and over-categorisation per WP:PERFCAT. – Fayenatic London 10:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, "reality show judge" is pretty much its own occupation, and people who do that is their regular gig should have their own category. I would say that it is also clearly defining that the Kardashians, and the regular cast of non-contest reality shows like The Deadliest Catch and Million Dollar Listing, are participants in reality television series (and not contestants). BD2412 T 16:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Judges and other non-contestants should be removed as non-defining and over-categorisation per WP:PERFCAT. – Fayenatic London 10:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. There is a potential alternative here, but this isn't it. For one thing, not every reality series actually has its own dedicated subcategory at all, meaning that some people just get pulled out of the tree entirely if these categories are strictly containerized. For instance, there isn't a dedicated subcategory for "U8TV: The Lofters participants", which would yank Jennifer Hedger and Mathieu Chantelois and Trevor Smith out of the tree; there isn't one for Masterchef Canada, which would yank Mary Berg out of the tree; and on and so forth. And even when there is a category, such as Category:Masked Singer winners, there aren't subcategories for winners of each individual international version, which would have the effect of orphaning lovebirds Wilfred Le Bouthillier and Marie-Élaine Thibert out of any categorization that clarified in any way that it was the Canadian edition that they won (and since there's only been one season so far of their version, they're five years away from the ability to create any Canada+Masked Singer intersection category on WP:SMALLCAT grounds.)
And as for reality show judges, that most certainly can be defining and relevant to categorize for — it's probably not relevant or useful in the case of somebody who guest-judged one episode, but there's an entire class of professional judges who that's basically all they do. I mean, what is Michelle Visage even notable for at all, really, if not for being a reality show judge? (Without that, she'd just be a redirect to a band rather than having her own standalone BLP.) And yes, it's also true that not all reality shows are competitive: Kim Kardashian is certainly a reality show participant, but she isn't a reality show contestant, because Keeping Up with the Kardashians wasn't a contest.
So there might be a better name for these categories, but this isn't it, and containerizing them isn't the solution to anything. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC) - Oppose Renaming this to contestants would make certain people that are on reality television and in these categories currently, become miscategorized as not all reality TV participants are contestants. WikiVirusC(talk) 17:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Professors of chemistry (Cambridge, 1702)
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: More concise, and bit less narrow. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. 1702 professorship is oldest permanent chemistry chair in the UK, and is notable though more for its interesting role in the history of science than the quality of its early incumbents. It was founded in response to cultish admiration for Newton, and its history covers the whole Modern Period and tallies with transition from Newtonian alchemy to recognisable chemistry. Incumbents played an interesting role in establishing in the UK the teaching of experimental science by researchers. Readers could conceivably wish to navigate these holders by category. I am working my way through some of these interesting professorships (partially as a means of diffusing the huge Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge), and will likely add create a more inclusive category called Category:Professors of chemistry (Cambridge) in due course... Charlie A. (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Clarification. I'm not particularly opposed to renaming the category per se. If there's an established convention I'm unaware of, or there's an alternative preferred for some other reason (e.g. Category:Holders of the 1702 professorship of chemistry at the University of Cambridge or Category:Professors of chemistry (1702) at the University of Cambridge etc.) But I think there's a good reason to keep the category for this particular interesting professorship, as opposed to all chemistry profs at Cam. Charlie A. (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. Let Charlie A. work through this. --Bduke (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. 1702 professorship is oldest permanent chemistry chair in the UK, and is notable though more for its interesting role in the history of science than the quality of its early incumbents. It was founded in response to cultish admiration for Newton, and its history covers the whole Modern Period and tallies with transition from Newtonian alchemy to recognisable chemistry. Incumbents played an interesting role in establishing in the UK the teaching of experimental science by researchers. Readers could conceivably wish to navigate these holders by category. I am working my way through some of these interesting professorships (partially as a means of diffusing the huge Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge), and will likely add create a more inclusive category called Category:Professors of chemistry (Cambridge) in due course... Charlie A. (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's a specific chair. Category:1702 Professors of Chemistry (Cambridge) would be okay. See Category:Professors of the University of Cambridge for capitalisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Re: capitalisation, fwiw I've tried(!) to be consistent about this...
- <Title, if it exists> Professors of <Upper Case Subject> (<Institution if required>, <Date if required>) – holders of a specific chair that hasn't been substantially renamed in its history (e.g. Category:Regius Professors of Ecclesiastical History)
- 'Professors of <Upper Case Subject> (<Institution>) – either (a) contains holders of a specific single chair, or (b) holders of multiple chairs at the same institution with the same name (e.g. Category:Professors of Music (Cambridge) relates to a single chair; Category:Professors of Political Economy (Cambridge) relates to multiple chairs, and contains a more specific subcategory for the notable one)
- <No title, even if it exists> Professors of <lower case subject> (Institution, <Date if required>) – holders of a specific chair that has been renamed substantially (e.g. Category:Professors of botany (Cambridge) contains holders before and after it became Regius, no year of establishment is required to disambiguate in this case; also see 1702/chemistry example above).
- <Title> Professors <no subject> (<Institution, if required>) – contains holders of a chair/chairs that has/have a consistent title, but differing/multiple subjects (e.g. Category:John Humphrey Plummer Professors)
- <Generic subject> professors at <Institution> – contains holders holding various chairs in the same broad field at the same institution (e.g. Category:Engineering professors at the University of Cambridge)
- Not arguing that the above is a perfect solution, and it's probably over-engineered, but they're conceptually different categories and I'm trying to apply the same format to each concept. Charlie A. (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Re: capitalisation, fwiw I've tried(!) to be consistent about this...
- Keep (i.e. do not merge). This is a specific named professorship. Category:1702 Professors of Chemistry (Cambridge) would be OK. This is now the Professor of Organic Chemistry. I presume there are sibling categories for physical and inorganic chemistry, though not of such antiquity; if not there should be. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Former assembly constituencies in Telangana
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Proper naming like, see, and also Defunc is the correct meaning. IJohnKennadytalk 08:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. The dominant convention of Category:Former constituencies is to use "Former", and I prefer the open proposal at CFD May 3#Former_constituencies to standardise on "Former". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - subcategories of Category:Former constituencies should use 'former' unless there is some convincing local objection to the word. Oculi (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per current discussion (?yesaterday) where the proposal is to normalise on "former". In any event Close to match other CFD discussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Television series by Stone Stanley Entertainment
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 11#Category:Television series by Stone Stanley Entertainment
Category:Hololive
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 11#Category:Hololive
Category:Burial sites of the House of Burke
- Nominator's rationale: There are currently a couple of pages included in this category: burials at
Blackfriars, London, and Athassell Priory and Ballintubber Priory.
As you can see from these pages themselves, the burials of the people from the 'House of Burke' are surnamed either de Burgh or Bourke.
People with the surnames Burke, Bourke, de Burca and de Burgh are all derived descended from the founders of the dynasty, the House of Burgh.
de Burgh was the original surname which later (in Irish) became de Burca/Burc/Burke/Bourke, etc.
Therefore, since all these people are descended from the original dynasty of Burgh, this category should be renamed as Category:Burial sites of the House of Burgh to reflect the origins of the family. Thank you. WilldeBurgh (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support - article is at House of Burgh. Although it was moved there without discussion in 2021 by the nominator there seems to have been no objection. Oculi (talk) 07:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:House of Burke
- Propose renaming Category:House of Burke to Category:House of Burgh
- Nominator's rationale: There are currently a variety of pages included in this category: people surnamed Burke, Bourke, de Burca and de Burgh (which is correct).
All these surnamed people are descended from the founders of the dynasty, the House of Burgh.
de Burgh was the original surname which later (in Irish) became de Burca/Burc/Burke/Bourke, etc.
Therefore, since all these people are descended from the original dynasty of Burgh, this category should be renamed as Category:House of Burgh to reflect the origins of the family. Thank you. WilldeBurgh (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support - article is at House of Burgh. Although it was moved there without discussion in 2021 by the nominator there seems to have been no objection. Oculi (talk) 07:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support per article name. But, as Oculi notes above, the article rename was a bit sneaky. At the very least, the nominator ought to have mentioned this fact and declared an interest. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry I thought I'd followed the advice properly so that anyone could comment (advice on renaming page does suggest 'being bold' when renaming) though I didn't think I was being that 'bold', I weighed-up the pro's and con's and thought 'Burgh' was more broad as an umbrella for all versions of the dynasty's name. No sneakiness intended, sorry if I got it wrong as a relative newcomer. But thanks for your support for this category change. WilldeBurgh (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:British lieutenant colonels
- Propose deleting Category:British lieutenant colonels ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Totally pointless category. The biggest problem is that it does not specify service and lumps lieutenant-colonels of the British Army, British Indian Army and Royal Marines together, despite the separate categories for officers of these services. But also, categorising by specific rank reached serves no useful purpose. The proliferation of these rank-specific categories needs to be stopped now. Pure overcategorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep -- If you object to having all these in one category, then split it. A colonel of marines would historically be an unusual appointment, possibly even a sinecure, as marines served on board ships in smaller numbers than required a colonel to command them. British officers in the army in India held the king's commission, even if commanding Indian troops, in contrast to Indian officers whose commission came from the viceroy. The distinction drawn is thus not a valid one. We should only categorise soldiers by the highest rank they attained (as they will inevitably have passed through the lower ranks first), but if we have articles on lieutenant colonels we should have a category for them. Colonels (unlike generals) are not notable per se, so that having an article means they have achieved something of note. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- If it was going to be created it should have been split in the first place before umpteen articles were added to it, thus making more work for other editors. The point about the Indian Army is that whether they held the King's Commission or not, they were not officers of the British Army but of the Indian Army. Two completely separate organisations that should not be lumped together (but unfortunately all too often are by those lacking in knowledge of the subject). Indians could also hold the King's Commission, incidentally. Viceroy's Commissioned Officers were a completely separate rank category similar to warrant officers. As for the Royal Marines, lieutenant-colonels (and colonels) traditionally served ashore in the three Royal Marine Barracks, but it doesn't mean they didn't exist (and since WWI they have commanded battalion-sized units just like army lieutenant-colonels). But I don't see how any of that is relevant in the first place. I simply fail to see how rank-specific categorisation is not a classic case of overcategorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, what is the point of categorisation in the first place? It's to aid navigation. But does anyone actually think, I know, I'll look up all the people with articles on Wikipedia who reached the rank of lieutenant-colonel and didn't go any higher? No, of course they don't. It just doesn't make any sense. It's categorisation for the sake of it. What's next? Category:British second lieutenants? Category:British lance corporals? Category:British leading aircraftmen? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Lower ranks would be categorised in a general soldiers or an army officers category. I might support having a majors category, but probably not lower than that. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- So why categorise this rank in particular? It's no more useful than they are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Note that British Army officers and soldiers are already categorised by regiments or corps. See Category:British Army officers and Category:British Army soldiers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- So why categorise this rank in particular? It's no more useful than they are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Lower ranks would be categorised in a general soldiers or an army officers category. I might support having a majors category, but probably not lower than that. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, what is the point of categorisation in the first place? It's to aid navigation. But does anyone actually think, I know, I'll look up all the people with articles on Wikipedia who reached the rank of lieutenant-colonel and didn't go any higher? No, of course they don't. It just doesn't make any sense. It's categorisation for the sake of it. What's next? Category:British second lieutenants? Category:British lance corporals? Category:British leading aircraftmen? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- If it was going to be created it should have been split in the first place before umpteen articles were added to it, thus making more work for other editors. The point about the Indian Army is that whether they held the King's Commission or not, they were not officers of the British Army but of the Indian Army. Two completely separate organisations that should not be lumped together (but unfortunately all too often are by those lacking in knowledge of the subject). Indians could also hold the King's Commission, incidentally. Viceroy's Commissioned Officers were a completely separate rank category similar to warrant officers. As for the Royal Marines, lieutenant-colonels (and colonels) traditionally served ashore in the three Royal Marine Barracks, but it doesn't mean they didn't exist (and since WWI they have commanded battalion-sized units just like army lieutenant-colonels). But I don't see how any of that is relevant in the first place. I simply fail to see how rank-specific categorisation is not a classic case of overcategorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This is a pointless mishmash. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, mismash as BHG says it. British Indian Army ranks were also inflated, like 2-4 ranks above regular ranks.--Mvqr (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
May 3
Category:Christian bell towers
- Propose merging Category:Christian bell towers to Category:Bell towers
- Nominator's rationale: purge and manually merge, the articles about churches and cathedrals should be removed and articles about bell towers should be kept. However, bell towers do not have a religion, so manually disperse to Category:Bell towers and its country subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose None of these is a Christian bell tower: Linh Phuoc Pagoda, The Bell Tower of Xi'an, Shōrō, Swan Bells, Swan Bells. The Christian towers are sufficiently distinct to warrant their own sub-category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep -- The use of bells is strongly associated with Christianity, bells having been long used to summon the faithful to worship. The Muslim equivalent is a minaret. The category might be limited to church bell towers, but on the whole it is better left alone. The target is a mixture of bell towers for other religions and secular ones, such as for war memoricals. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:West Lusatia
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 10#Category:West Lusatia
Category:Geology of Great Britain
- Propose deleting Category:Geology of Great Britain ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: One of the many redundant category layers created by Balkovec who has been unmasked as a sock. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not entirely sure. Geology may be a valid subcategory of any island. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)- Delete. I dont think Geology is much affected by changing political configurations. Category:Geology of the United Kingdom seems quite sufficient. Rathfelder (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep but merge in the subcategory: it is that one that is the redundant level. GB is an island and Ireland is another. It is entirely appropriate to have such a split in this case. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Rock formations of Great Britain
- Propose deleting Category:Rock formations of Great Britain ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: One of the many redundant category layers created by Balkovec who has been unmasked as a sock. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not entirely sure. Rock formations may be a valid subcategory of any island. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Geology of Great Britain. I would prefer articles to be about geology (a science) than about rock formations (an aspect of it). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Pseudoastronomers
- Propose renaming Category:Pseudoastronomers to Category:Pseudoscientific astronomers
- Nominator's rationale: While grouping proponents of astronomy-related pseudoscience is a coherent idea, I cannot find adequate attestation to this neologism. Also, the new name would match other subcategories of Category:Advocates of pseudoscience. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose The term " PseudoAstronomy" has been used elsewhere too. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment perhaps Category:Pseudoastronomy people then? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, except David Meade (author) they are all pseudo-historians rather than pseudo-astronomers, with theories about what might have happened in prehistory. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)- Delete per WP:NONDEFINING and WP:NEOLOGISM. I can find few reliable examples of any iteration of the term pseudoastromy/-er (with or without a hyphen) and none appear commonly or consistently applied to a single person. The profusion of "pseudo-x" or "pseudoscientific X" categories applied in a fashion disproportionate to their usage in reliable sources should be seriously scrutinized. That a lone scientist operates a blog called "Pseudo Astronomy" does not mean that the term "pseudoastronomer" is commonly and consistently used to describe any of the persons. Junk science and junk scientists (or pseudoscientists) can still be categorized as such if commonly described as such, but Wikipedians should not get in the habit of stroking their proverbial beards and deciding what the world (and bots) will now call certain people or things (at least not on Wikipedia - by all means, blog and categorize your hearts out elsewhere). --Animalparty! (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Advocates of pseudoscience. This group of people seem to be ones who brought unscientific interpretations of astronomy into their pseudoscience. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- That won't be necessary, except David Meade (author) they are already in Category:Pseudohistorians. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Songs about fires
- Propose deleting Category:Songs about fires ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Songs about arson ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: These songs are not actually "about" fire, they just have the word fire in the title. For example, in "We Didn't Start the Fire", it is metaphorical, not a literal fire; the song is about the constant stream of events that show up in the media. A misinterpretation of Wikipedia's categorization policy. Should be deleted as inaccurate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I actually looked up the lyrics of the songs on Genius, they mentioned houses being intentionally burnt by someone else. Some songs talked about events that involved flames. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I looked up one, Cherokee Highway, and it is a song "about racial unrest" featuring an episode of arson. Again, mere mentions of something in a work of media does not mean that it is defining per WP:NONDEF. It is correctly in Category:Songs against racism and xenophobia but saying it is "about" arson would be a stretch. The Roof Is on Fire can be even said to be metaphorical and not literal. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed – I doubt that any of the songs listed at Hearts on Fire are literally about fire. Richard3120 (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Zxcvbnm: We can look for songs those lyrics literally talked about fire throughout the song. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed – I doubt that any of the songs listed at Hearts on Fire are literally about fire. Richard3120 (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- I looked up one, Cherokee Highway, and it is a song "about racial unrest" featuring an episode of arson. Again, mere mentions of something in a work of media does not mean that it is defining per WP:NONDEF. It is correctly in Category:Songs against racism and xenophobia but saying it is "about" arson would be a stretch. The Roof Is on Fire can be even said to be metaphorical and not literal. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. "...But don't play with me, 'Cause you're playing with fire." Yes, Play with Fire is in there because it is about a fire according to one editor. So, perhaps the category should be renamed, Category:Songs that have 'Fire' in the title used metaphorically, allegorically, or other literary device, No, that fails WP:SHAREDNAME. "About" categories will always be problematic and generally more WP:OR than WP:CATV. And for any editor who says 'keep but prune' just start pruning...--Richhoncho (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Template:Epsilonproteobacteria-stub
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 10#Template:Epsilonproteobacteria-stub
Category:Songs about body parts
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete all Timrollpickering (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Songs about body parts ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Songs about breasts ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Songs about buttocks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Songs about eyes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Songs about hair and hairstyles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Songs about penises ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Songs about vaginas ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: This category and all subcategories just contain songs with body parts in the title. Most of them are not actually about body parts, so the category is misleading and I doubt it is defining. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Time to put your foot down and elbow all of these. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and before they grow into Frankenstein's monster. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete all per WP:SHAREDNAME. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 14:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Deltaproteobacteria-stub
- Propose deleting Template:Deltaproteobacteria-stub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Template:Deltaproteobacteria-stub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: The bacterial class Deltaproteobacteria has been dismantled and four new phyla erected in its place (see here). New stub templates have been created for these new phyla (as needed) and the new stub templates have been placed in the appropriate articles. There is no longer any use for this stub and the associated category (Category:Deltaproteobacteria stubs) is effectively empty. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Ninjatacoshell: I think you might have confused CfD for TfD with this and the above nomination? As for the category, delete as empty and not useful. FrankSpheres (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Stub templates may be nominated here. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Presumably this nomination fits WP:G8. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians interested in Sant Nirankari Mission
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians interested in Sant Nirankari Mission ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: per WP:USERCATNO. Overly narrow scope. 1857a (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Historical letters
- Propose deleting Category:Historical letters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Category:Historical letters is either not very useful or an active attractive nuisance.
- The category's name has two possible interpretations: (a) letters written in the past, and (b) letters about history. Interpretation (a) is not useful - the vast majority of letters with Wikipedia articles will have already been written; if this is the intended interpretation, just about all of Category:Letters (message) should go in to it. Interpretation (b) could be useful, and it's supported by the cat being a subcat of Category:Works about history... but it's not actually how it's being used: not one single article is covering a letter about history (at most, they're primary sources relaying then-current events); hence, if interpretation (b) is intended, it's being entirely misused.
- It should be deleted and upmerged into Category:Letters (message). If a 'letters about history' category is needed, it should be created with an unambiguous name, so that 'letters within history' don't get miscategorised into it - but, considering that there's no (e.g.) 'letters about art' or 'letters about politics' category, I am suspicious of the desirability of such a category absent a broader initiative around topicalisation. FrankSpheres (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. this is a highly stable category. it fulfils a valuable purpose, in grouping together entries that pertain to letters which have entries here, due to their intrinsic notability. if they weren't notable, then they wouldn't have an entry in the first place; so the category itself is valid, on that basis and for that reason. --Sm8900 (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The intention is apparently something like Category:Letters written before 1900 but that is not how the category trees work. The letters in this category are or should be part of the tree of Category:Documents by century and that suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- 'Delete per nom and User:Marcocapelle. Right now it is a bad type of grouping for "old letters". No objection to creation of Category:Letters about history if it is show to have potential to have more entries. You all may be interested in a recent related discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_May_1#Category:Historical_fiction. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, possibly rename. The category could be considerably expanded. A clear note defining "historical" would be nice. Category:Letters about history is hopeless - obviously when they are written they are very much about current events (similar issue in the Historical fiction one). Sending them to the hell of "by century" categories, which surely no-one ever looks at, is no help either. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- On the contrary, by century categories are very useful in finding content from the same period. This category is all over the place ranging from antiquity to 19th century which isn't useful at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- OK, so the article Correspondence of the Kings of Ur, just as one example, doesn't make it worthwhile to have a category like this? that is just one example of some highly useful materials on this topic.--Sm8900 (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Categories are supposed to contain related content. Correspondence of the Kings of Ur is completely unrelated to e.g. Maria Perkins letter.
- Keep -- Letters are an important class of historical document. At some periods chronicles are another. Much of my research was based on title deeds, accounts and litigation records, which are more classes of historical documents. It may be that some letters do not deserve to be included or should be split into new subcategories, but I see no valid reason for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep -- All epistolary content is related to each other thematically and epistemologically; while the current category may serve as a sort of waste-paper basket, it is clear that most editors have interpreted it as meaning 'letters with historical notability/content'. That is a perfectly sensible category—I would not be opposed to renaming on these lines, but deletion is too far.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Slothrust albums
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Slothrust albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Category is entirely populated by redirects back to the artist's article, serves no purpose as an album category. Richard3120 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete without prejudice towards recreation if any of the redirects grow into articles. FrankSpheres (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. A category of redirects all to the main article is not helpful. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Swabian-language writers from Germany
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Swabian-language writers from Germany to Category:Swabian-language writers
- Nominator's rationale: They are all from Germany and not likely to be from elsewhere. Rathfelder (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Rename, without prejudice to recreating if needed due to discoveries of secret Swabian literary cultures. I note the suggested target is already a redirect pointing to the cat under discussion, so this really should be fine. FrankSpheres (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Scholars and academics
- Propose renaming Category:Scholars and academics to Category:People in academia
- Nominator's rationale: We know that anything with "and" is likely a mess. And so is this. Fortunately, as a child to Category:Academia (and People by occupation), the rename to "People in academia" should be an elegant solution. Such a rename should likely affect various subcategories (which I am not listing as I don't know how to do it easily - do let me know if there is a relevant gadget).Additionally, it's worth pointing out that this category also contains generic Category:Researchers and Category:Scientists (as well as less common Category:Curators; and for whatever reason, does not contain Category:Theorists). All those terms are highly synonymous and the choice of scholars and academic but not the other synonyms seems very arbitrary. Note that we do not have an article on academic (it is a redirect to Academy#Academic_personnel), researcher (a redirect to research) nor theorist (a rediect to theory). As far as profession go, we only have articles on scholar and scientist. More cleanup is likely needed., but let's start with what I think is the simplest - renaming the "Scholars and academics" to "people in academia". PS. When it was created it was a "disambiguation category", but has evoled since... PPS. The problem was noticed on Commons but Commons mills grind slowly: commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/02/Category:Scholars and academics. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- What would then be the difference between Category:People in academia and Category:Academics? (I agree it's all a bit of a mess.) -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)s
- @Kj cheetham Indeed, here we run into the problems that we don't even have articles for academia (redirect to academy, a type of school), nor academic (see above). Frankly, I'd like to see most of those categories culled as they are ambiguous synonyms. See below for my reply to BHG, where based on fair point, I think maybe the better name to chose would be just Category:Scholars. Academics can, perhaps, remain as a subset of scholars who (to use BHG's words) "work within academia" and/or (to use the definition from Category:Academics) "do peer-reviewed research and/or teach in post-secondary education.". And while you think about it, please consider what to do with categories for researchers, theorists, scientists and curators... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please note that Category:People in academia is a much broader set than Category:Academics.
- ":People in academia" includes lots of non-academic staff, such as administrators, fund-raisers, sports staff, buildings and grounds maintenance staff, cleaners, caterers, and (in the USA) security personnel.
- The proposal would conflate academics with all these non-academics, which would be a real mess. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Kj cheetham Indeed, here we run into the problems that we don't even have articles for academia (redirect to academy, a type of school), nor academic (see above). Frankly, I'd like to see most of those categories culled as they are ambiguous synonyms. See below for my reply to BHG, where based on fair point, I think maybe the better name to chose would be just Category:Scholars. Academics can, perhaps, remain as a subset of scholars who (to use BHG's words) "work within academia" and/or (to use the definition from Category:Academics) "do peer-reviewed research and/or teach in post-secondary education.". And while you think about it, please consider what to do with categories for researchers, theorists, scientists and curators... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- What would then be the difference between Category:People in academia and Category:Academics? (I agree it's all a bit of a mess.) -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)s
- Strong oppose. The reason for the current name is that not all scholarly people work within academia, and some have never even studied there. That pattern of non-academic scholarship was dominant in many countries before the 20th century. This rename would exclude all those people who did (or still do) their scholarly work worked outside academia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl While I see your point, we need a name that makes sense. "Poorly defined relevant entity A an poorly defined relevant entity B" don't make for a good category name. You say "scholarly people". Ok. Maybe Category:Scholars should be the parent name here? As I said, we should cleanup those subcategories too, maybe we can solve two problems at the same time. So how about merging this and Category:Scholars into one category at the current level? After all, if I understand you correctly, you say that not all scholars are academics, but all academics are scholars? If so, then a parent-child category relation should be created between Category:Scholars and Category:Academics, while the current category which is has a "child and parent"-type (child being academic, and parent being scholar)name should go away as confusing. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: I dunno what you mean by
merging this and Category:Scholars into one category at the current level
. - As I see it, academics are a subset of scholars, i.e scholars who work within academia. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl Sorry if I wasn't clear. What I mean is that I find your argument compelling, and as such I am fine discarding my initial proposal of renaming this to "Category:People in academia". Instead I now would prefer to rename this (i.e. Category:Scholars and academics) to Category:Scholars (the latter would be upmerged). After all, if as you say, "academics are a subset of scholars", then Category:Academics should be a child to Category:Scholars, and there is no need to have an entity named Category:Scholars and academics. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: there might be some potential in something like that ... but there are lot of subcats named ""Scholars and academics", and I would oppose any proposal which did not provide a clear path for what to do with them.
- However, I think that Piotrus's multiply-shaky grasp of the concepts has left this discussion as a huge mess. I can't see anything constructive coming out of this mess. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl Sorry if I wasn't clear. What I mean is that I find your argument compelling, and as such I am fine discarding my initial proposal of renaming this to "Category:People in academia". Instead I now would prefer to rename this (i.e. Category:Scholars and academics) to Category:Scholars (the latter would be upmerged). After all, if as you say, "academics are a subset of scholars", then Category:Academics should be a child to Category:Scholars, and there is no need to have an entity named Category:Scholars and academics. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: I dunno what you mean by
- @BrownHairedGirl While I see your point, we need a name that makes sense. "Poorly defined relevant entity A an poorly defined relevant entity B" don't make for a good category name. You say "scholarly people". Ok. Maybe Category:Scholars should be the parent name here? As I said, we should cleanup those subcategories too, maybe we can solve two problems at the same time. So how about merging this and Category:Scholars into one category at the current level? After all, if I understand you correctly, you say that not all scholars are academics, but all academics are scholars? If so, then a parent-child category relation should be created between Category:Scholars and Category:Academics, while the current category which is has a "child and parent"-type (child being academic, and parent being scholar)name should go away as confusing. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Bhg, and because the proposed title will be less, not more clear to some readers. Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Its not a very useful category, but this would make it worse.Rathfelder (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Rathfelder See some other ideas proposed above. I think we can fix this, one way or another. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see anything proposed here which would be a "fix".
- I just see a set of very badly judged suggestions which would lose important distinctions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Rathfelder See some other ideas proposed above. I think we can fix this, one way or another. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- "Scholars" was never a very precise term and its not improving with age. The word is used these days as a compliment in some cultures. The only reasonably well defined use seems to be in religion. Otherwise Category:Scholars seems to contain a random selection. I dont think I would describe modern scientists or physicians as scholars but I dont object to making it a parent of Academics.Rathfelder (talk) 12:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Upmerging Category: Scholars to Category: Scholars and academics per
B.H.G. andPiotrus. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)- @GizzyCatBella: that's NOT what I advocate. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. You said: there might be some potential. My bad. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- @GizzyCatBella: that's NOT what I advocate. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I would containerize Category: Scholars and probably the modern subcategories. It just tempts people to put people like Barak Obama in them. Rathfelder (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- 'Support instead merging to Category:Scholars, which would contain Category:Academics, as a starting point. How to deal with Category:Scholars and academics by nationality and it's contents, Category:Scholars and academics by subject, Category:Lists of scholars and academics, Category:Women scholars and academics and any other cat with "Scholars and academics" in the title should be another wider discussion. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Category:Scottish scholars and academics is the biggest nationality subcategory and many of the articles are about university academics. It needs purging. Rathfelder (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Downmerging Category:Scholars and academics to Category:Scholars may not be a bad idea but it would require a discussion about the subcategories too. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle @Kj cheetham Since the logic goes, all academics are scholars, the change from 'scholars and academics' to 'scholars' does not introduce any errors, so all subcategories can be safely renamed. Interested editors may want to later replace 'scholars' with 'academics' where it is more appropriate on an individual basis in the future. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think you are right in principle, but I would prefer a fresh discussion that includes about a dozen subcategories like Category:Scottish scholars and academics and Category:Women scholars and academics. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle Is there a gadget for mass nominations? Either way, if we can rename the parent, we can then propose a follow up discussion for child categories citing this as a precedent. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Too bad there isn't a gadget. With many dozens of categories one may use AWB for tagging the category pages though. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think you are right in principle, but I would prefer a fresh discussion that includes about a dozen subcategories like Category:Scottish scholars and academics and Category:Women scholars and academics. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Former constituencies
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename/Merge Timrollpickering (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose renaming
- Bangladesh
- Canada
- Category:Defunct Canadian electoral districts to Category:Former electoral districts of Canada
- Category:Defunct Canadian federal electoral districts to Category:Former federal electoral districts of Canada
- Category:Defunct Alberta federal electoral districts to Category:Former federal electoral districts of Alberta
- Category:Defunct British Columbia federal electoral districts to Category:Former federal electoral districts of British Columbia
- Category:Defunct Manitoba federal electoral districts to Category:Former federal electoral districts of Manitoba
- Category:Defunct New Brunswick federal electoral districts to Category:Former federal electoral districts of New Brunswick
- Category:Defunct Newfoundland and Labrador federal electoral districts to Category:Former federal electoral districts of Newfoundland and Labrador
- Category:Defunct Northwest Territories federal electoral districts to Category:Former federal electoral districts of Northwest Territories
- Category:Defunct Nova Scotia federal electoral districts to Category:Former federal electoral districts of Nova Scotia
- Category:Defunct Ontario federal electoral districts to Category:Former federal electoral districts of Ontario
- Category:Defunct Prince Edward Island federal electoral districts to Category:Former federal electoral districts of Prince Edward Island
- Category:Defunct Quebec federal electoral districts to Category:Former federal electoral districts of Quebec
- Category:Defunct Saskatchewan federal electoral districts to Category:Former federal electoral districts of Saskatchewan
- Category:Defunct Yukon federal electoral districts to Category:Former federal electoral districts of Yukon
- Category:Defunct Canadian provincial and territorial electoral districts to Category:Former provincial and territorial electoral districts of Canada
- Category:Former Alberta provincial electoral districts to Category:Former provincial electoral districts of Alberta
- Category:Defunct British Columbia provincial electoral districts to Category:Former provincial electoral districts of British Columbia
- Category:Defunct Manitoba provincial electoral districts to Category:Former provincial electoral districts of Manitoba
- Category:Defunct New Brunswick provincial electoral districts to Category:Former provincial electoral districts of New Brunswick
- Category:Former Northwest Territories electoral districts to Category:Former electoral districts of Northwest Territories
- Category:Former Nova Scotia provincial electoral districts to Category:Former provincial electoral districts of Nova Scotia
- Category:Defunct Ontario provincial electoral districts to Category:Former provincial electoral districts of Ontario
- Category:Defunct Prince Edward Island provincial electoral districts to Category:Former provincial electoral districts of Prince Edward Island
- Category:Former Quebec provincial electoral districts to Category:Former provincial electoral districts of Quebec
- Category:Former Saskatchewan provincial electoral districts to Category:Former provincial electoral districts of Saskatchewan
- Category:Defunct Canadian federal electoral districts to Category:Former federal electoral districts of Canada
- Category:Defunct Canadian electoral districts to Category:Former electoral districts of Canada
- Estonia
- India
- Category:Defunct constituencies of the Lok Sabha to Category:Former constituencies of the Lok Sabha
- Category:Defunct Lok Sabha constituencies in Karnataka to Category:Former Lok Sabha constituencies of Karnataka
- Category:Former Lok Sabha constituencies in Madhya Pradesh to Category:Former Lok Sabha constituencies of Madhya Pradesh
- Category:Defunct Lok Sabha constituencies in Punjab to Category:Former Lok Sabha constituencies of Punjab, India
- Category:Defunct Lok Sabha constituencies in Uttar Pradesh to Category:Former Lok Sabha constituencies of Uttar Pradesh
- Category:Defunct Lok Sabha constituencies in Uttarakhand to Category:Former Lok Sabha constituencies of Uttarakhand
- Category:Defunct legislative assembly constituencies of Indian states to Category:Former legislative assembly constituencies of Indian states
- Category:Former assembly constituencies in Andhra Pradesh to Category:Former assembly constituencies of Andhra Pradesh
- Category:Former assembly constituencies in Bihar to Category:Former assembly constituencies of Bihar
- Category:Defunct Assembly constituencies of Delhi to Category:Former assembly constituencies of Delhi
- Category:Defunct Assembly constituencies of Goa to Category:Former assembly constituencies of Goa
- Category:Defunct Assembly constituencies of Gujarat to Category:Former assembly constituencies of Gujarat
- Category:Former Assembly constituencies of Haryana to Category:Former assembly constituencies of Haryana
- Category:Defunct Assembly constituencies of Himachal Pradesh to Category:Former assembly constituencies of Himachal Pradesh
- Category:Defunct Assembly constituencies of Jammu and Kashmir to Category:Former assembly constituencies of Jammu and Kashmir
- Category:Defunct Assembly constituencies of Karnataka to Category:Former assembly constituencies of Karnataka
- Category:Defunct Assembly constituencies of Kerala to Category:Former assembly constituencies of Kerala
- Category:Former Assembly constituencies of Madhya Pradesh to Category:Former assembly constituencies of Madhya Pradesh
- Category:Defunct Assembly constituencies of Maharashtra to Category:Former assembly constituencies of Maharashtra
- Category:Defunct Assembly constituencies of Meghalaya to Category:Former assembly constituencies of Meghalaya
- Category:Defunct Assembly constituencies of Punjab, India to Category:Former assembly constituencies of Punjab, India
- Category:Defunct legislative assembly constituencies of Rajasthan to Category:Former assembly constituencies of Rajasthan
- Category:Defunct assembly constituencies of Tamil Nadu to Category:Former assembly constituencies of Tamil Nadu
- Category:Former assembly constituencies in Telangana and Category:Defunct Assembly constituencies of Telangana to Category:Former assembly constituencies of Telangana (both are the same)
- Category:Defunct Assembly constituencies of Uttar Pradesh to Category:Former assembly constituencies of Uttar Pradesh
- Category:Former assembly constituencies in Uttarakhand to Category:Former assembly constituencies of Uttarakhand
- Category:Former assembly constituencies in West Bengal to Category:Former assembly constituencies of West Bengal
- Category:Defunct constituencies of the Lok Sabha to Category:Former constituencies of the Lok Sabha
- Norway
- UK
- USA
- Category:Defunct legislative districts of the United States to Category:Former legislative districts of the United States
- Category:Obsolete United States congressional districts to Category:Former congressional districts of the United States
- Category:Obsolete Massachusetts Senate districts to Category:Former Senate districts of Massachusetts
- Category:Obsolete Massachusetts House of Representatives districts to Category:Former House of Representatives districts of Massachusetts
- Category:Defunct legislative districts of the United States to Category:Former legislative districts of the United States
- Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the category tree. Some things:
- Other nominations in the group are updated to follow the Wikipedia:Category names#State-based topics : the "... of <country/state>" as these are administrative divisions and not settlements.
- The Indian parliamentaries are named "Former Lok Sabha constituencies of ..." which seems out of consistency with others in the tree. The alternative would be "Former parliamentary constituency of <India/Indian state name here>"
- I proposed "Former assembly constituency of <Indian state name>" instead of "Former Assembly constituency of ..." (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indian constituencies)) so that they are consistent with other in the category tree, viz. "electoral districts", "parliamentary constituencies"
- P.S. I haven't notified the creators. If required, please let me know. For now, I'll notify just the above respective country WikiProjects — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC) (Updated with the entire list — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC))
- Support -- It will be good to have consistency between countries. In USA, we need to be careful over names so that we do not confuse federal and state electoral districts. I think UK constituencies use "former". Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support - as the head category is Category:Former constituencies the subcategories should follow suit. 18:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support — former also is much clearer than defunct — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 08:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom. 'Former' seems to be a more accurate word -- Ab207 (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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.
May 2
Sex offenders by nationality
- Propose containerizing Category:American sex offenders
- Propose containerizing Category:Australian sex offenders
- Propose containerizing Category:Austrian sex offenders
- Propose containerizing Category:Belgian sex offenders
- Propose containerizing Category:British sex offenders
- Propose containerizing Category:Canadian sex offenders
- Propose containerizing Category:Chinese sex offenders
- Propose containerizing Category:Dutch sex offenders
- Propose containerizing Category:French sex offenders
- Propose containerizing Category:German sex offenders
- Propose containerizing Category:Israeli sex offenders
- Propose containerizing Category:Jamaican sex offenders
- Propose containerizing Category:Japanese sex offenders
- Propose containerizing Category:Mexican sex offenders
- Propose containerizing Category:Norwegian sex offenders
- Propose containerizing Category:Polish sex offenders
- Propose containerizing Category:Swiss sex offenders
- Propose containerizing Category:Taiwanese sex offenders
- Propose containerizing Category:English sex offenders
- Propose containerizing Category:Scottish sex offenders
- Propose containerizing Category:Welsh sex offenders
- Nominator's rationale: containerize per precedent, see this previous recent discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Denniscabrams, Jim Michael, LaundryPizza03, Peterkingiron, Laurel Lodged, Orangemike, Dugwiki, Crazysuit, Greg Grahame, Xtifr, and Craig.Scott: pinging contributors to recent discussion and to older 2007 discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- In principle Support -- We should only have articles on people who were convicted or died (e.g. suicide) after being indicted. However the British category includes two articles related to sex offences, rather than offenders. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I purged the two articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Denniscabrams, Jim Michael, LaundryPizza03, Peterkingiron, Laurel Lodged, Orangemike, Dugwiki, Crazysuit, Greg Grahame, Xtifr, and Craig.Scott: I've tried to ping you before in this discussion but I am afraid something went wrong. This is the second attempt. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support per previous. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- There are many articles in some of these, especially the American & English cats, so if the containerising goes ahead, many articles will ned recategorising. Jimmy Savile is not currently in any cats which say that he was a sex offender, despite him having been an unusually prolific (known, though never convicted) sex offender. Jim Michael (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Jimmy Savile is not in any of the nominated categories anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since it's been sitting for a month and hasn't been actioned or commented on...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Containerize per above. Place Clichy (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Diffuse but do not containerise. It was me who closed the precedent discussion, but on closer inspection I believe that it came to an incorrect decision. Sure, most of the articles are already in more specific sub-cats, or could be moved there. However, for some articles there is no appropriate sub-cat, and yet categorising as a sex offender is still defining and useful. For example, in English sex offenders:
- Ian Huntley, convicted of the Soham murders, for which a sexual motive was probable but not proven. This case was very notable, and a later inquiry led to the foundation of the Independent Safeguarding Authority. Huntley had committed several previous sexual offences but was never charged for those, although he later confessed to at least one of them.
- Eric Gill, whose diaries posthumously revealed sexual abuse of his daughters and incest with his sisters. This led to ongoing protests about his artworks being on display, so the category is clearly defining.
- Victor Montagu, let off with a police caution for indecently assaulting a boy for two years. A caution is a criminal record but not a conviction, so he is correctly categorised as an offender, but there is no sub-cat that fits.
- Neil Shipperley, subject to a sexual offences notification requirement order after indecent exposure, but there is no Category:People convicted of indecent exposure.
- – Fayenatic London 08:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- At least the last case is a good example of how overreaching categorization of sexual offenders can bring together too many unrelated things The previous decision is good in reserving the category to a more precise predefined list of specific offenses. Indecent exposure is typically the kind of things which will be criminalized in some cultures and jurisdictions and shrugged upon elsewhere. In the case of Shipperley, it seems that the intro defines him by his football and coaching carreer, whereas a public masturbation incident would probably not be defining for him or be mentioned in introduction. It would therefore be perfectly fine if this article is no longer in any sexual offender category as a result of the containerization decision. Place Clichy (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Languages of Palestine
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Languages of Palestine to Category:Languages of the State of Palestine
- Nominator's rationale: This duplicate seems to have been overlooked when most sibling categories were renamed to use State of Palestine, e.g. in this discussion, this one or this one. Looking at the content, there does not seem to be an obvious reason to differentiate between languages spoken in the State of Palestine or another understanding of the delimitation of the region: most pertinent content is duplicated in the two categories. Place Clichy (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- The category was not overlooked, but re-created by User:Nehme1499 after it was renamed. Merger is probably appropriate here, with some with recategorising, as North Levantine Arabic is mainly beyond the borders of the State. The alternative would be to rename to Category:Languages of Palestine (region) as part of Category:Palestine (region). – Fayenatic London 22:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I assumed that Category:Languages of Palestine had been deleted because it was an empty category, not because it had been moved. I don't have any position on which name should be used. Nehme1499 22:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- When a topic (e.g. a language) spans over several geographical entities, it is probably more common to place the article is several geographical categories rather than keeping a loosely-defined larger geographical category. That was a rationale behind the renaming of many ambiguous Palestine categories into the less ambiguous State of Palestine. So North Levantine Arabic/Category:North Levantine Arabic belong in Category:Languages of Lebanon, Languages of Syria and Category:Languages of Turkey (not Palestine according to the article), and South Levantine Arabic in Languages of Israel, Languages of Jordan and Languages of the State of Palestine. Place Clichy (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:American primetime television dramas
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 9#Category:American primetime television dramas
Category:Twelvers
- Propose deleting Category:Twelvers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, since 85% of Shias are adherents of Twelver Shi'ism, this category will ultimately lead to a dump of the large majority of Category:Shia Muslims and all of its subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep still a valid categorization, if anything the category can be turned into a container category. The vast majority of Catholics are Roman Catholics, but that doesn't mean we deleted all the categories in the Catholic category tree. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Buyid-period poets
- 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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Buyid-period poets to Category:People of the Buyid dynasty
- Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles. Note that the target has been nominated for renaming to Category:People under the Buyid dynasty. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Not an improvement. The history of the Buyids is pretty well-attested, and there are more than enough articles to create to fill up the category. Per WP:SMALLCAT; "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time." --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Poet is not an office, there is no guarantee of notability. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- The office bit is just an example. Sure there is, poetry in that region and era is one of the most notable things there are. Which is also why there are 7 articles now. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This category is already large enough to justify it. Anyway, any upmerge would also have to figure out how else to categorize these poets. Breaking down the Poets of Iran by the dynasty during which they produced their poetry is a reasonable project, and so this involves huge Category:Iranian poets that group together people from way too long periods of time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Withdraw. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Exo (band)
- Propose renaming Category:Exo (band) to Category:Exo
- Nominator's rationale: Subcategories - Category:Exo (band) EPs, Category:Exo (band) albums, Category:Exo (band) concert tours, Category:Exo (band) members and Category:Exo (band) songs would be moved as well. I propose this rename as the article is called Exo and so usually the categories should reflect that. --Ferien (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Procedural comment, only the top category has been tagged. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Exo (disambiguation). Marcocapelle (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Marcocapelle, according to Wikipedia:Categorization#Topic category, topic categories like this one should usually have the same name as the Wikipedia article. London's category matches for example, but there's also London (disambiguation). Just because we have a disambiguation page doesn't automatically mean that we shouldn't follow the Wikipedia article. --Ferien (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Category:London is an exception, Category:Birmingham, West Midlands is the way it is usually solved. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Not always because Category:Liverpool, Category:Chester and Category:Manchester all are based on the article name as well, and most other categories I have seen around based on cities, people, topics etc. I also should note that none of the pages listed at Exo (disambiguation), apart from the transit agency category that is based on the article, would actually have categories of their own. --Ferien (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Category:London is an exception, Category:Birmingham, West Midlands is the way it is usually solved. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support WP:C2D with the main article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support WP:C2D. I would have speedied if I had not seen a voice of opposition here. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom. ✗plicit 12:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:History in fiction
- Propose renaming Category:History in fiction to Category:Historical fiction by period of setting
- Nominator's rationale: rename to clarify the actual purpose of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Merge into Category:Historical fiction - I feel this particular subcategory is rather pointless and duplicative. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Both have a pretty large number of subcategories, so after merging it would become quite messy. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Comics genres
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Comics genres to Category:Comics by genre
- Nominator's rationale: This is the same concept. There is no note about differences between the categories, and much of the content overlaps (ex. both have entries on adult comics, crime comics, etc.). After merging, wikidata/interwikis may need some cleanup (probably through the merger of the relevant WD pages). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't see an overlap here - one is about the genres themselves and the other is sorting individual works by genre. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - as Zxcvbnm has stated, there doesn't seem to be any overlap. Category:Comics genres contains the articles on the genres, like Abstract comics, Crime comics, Fantasy comics, etc. Category:Comics by genre contains the articles on the individual comics, arranged into subcats such as Category:Detective comics which in turn contain the actual comics like Blake and Mortimer, Janus Stark and Tif et Tondu. Spokoyni (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Graduated of the St. Petersburg Mining Institute (until 1917)
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose for renaming, possibly merging or deletion Category:Graduated of the St. Petersburg Mining Institute (until 1917) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: This is presumably an attempt to split the alumni of what is now the Saint Petersburg Mining University into pre- and post-revolutionary parts (there is already a Category:Saint Petersburg Mining University alumni). For starters it should probably be something along the lines of 'Saint Petersburg Mining Institute alumni (pre 1917)'. But there is more that is perhaps problematic. In 1866 it received the name "Mining Institute" and in 1896 the name "Empress Catherine II Mining Institute". With the Bolshevik success in the October Revolution, in 1917 the imperial name was dropped and it became just the "Mining Institute" again. In 1924 it became the "Leningrad Mining Institute". It has changed name nine times since then. What name is best to group the pre-1917 names into one category? Saint Petersburg wasn't part of any of the names until 1992 when it became the "G. V. Plekhanov Saint Petersburg State Mining Institute". Should it just be 'Mining Institute alumni (pre 1917)', or is that too ambiguous? Is the '(pre 1917)' part still required? And ultimately, is it even desirable to divide the alumni into pre- and post-1917 categories anyway? Spokoyni (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Merge with alumni of the present Mining Institute: Category:Saint Petersburg Mining University alumni -- The practice with alumni categories is that people are deemed to have graduated from the present institution where it has merged or been renamed. A pre-revolutionary split is not justified. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Merge There are plenty of universities which have changed their names, merged or split (and sometimes both). It doesnt seem practicable to divide their academics or alumni by the different identities. Rathfelder (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Card battle video games
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Digital collectible card games. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Card battle video games to Category:Digital collectible card games
- Nominator's rationale: Category seems to completely overlap and be about the exact same thing as far as I can tell. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Merge. I concur this is the same concept. One could argue that there are some card games where there is no 'battle', but that's a pretty Orish argument. The term "card battle games" does seem to exist, but until it is properly defined with reliable sources, and someone can point out to a CCG that does not involve some form of battlin (which can be defined as a competition...), I support the merge. (We also don't have an article on card battling, and in the category this term is piped to CCGs...) Btw, food for thought. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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.
May 1
Category:Operation Overlord people
- Propose deleting Category:Operation Overlord people ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT which rarely if ever meets the criteria of WP:DEFCAT. Most of the people in it, ex. Charles Coleman (British Army officer), just happened to be there, but that's about it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Uncertain about what qualifies someone for membership in the category. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - as noted, this is OVERCAT and non-defining for the vast majority of the thousands of people involved. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Per nomination as nondefining and overcategorization. BilCat (talk) 01:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Split and prune -- Operation Overlord was the allied invasion of Normandy in 1944. I am not clear how long after the landings the term continued to be used. At present the category is so overpopulated as to be useless as a navigation tool. I would suggest a split into British, American and Canadian categories. To qualify for inclusion, the bio article needs to mention Operation Overlord or the Normandy landings or the subterfuge operations to make Hitler think the main thrust would be across the Straits to Calais. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete We categorize people by war, not by individual campaign in the war. Down the latter road lies madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly OVERCAT. Intothatdarkness 14:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. In addition to the policy rationales explained by the nominator and others, the current mass additions to this category, apparently almost all without a citation, by an IP ignoring user talk page warnings by several different editors, clearly demonstrate the practical problems of maintaining such a category in accordance with WP:V. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians interested in The Witches (novel)
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians interested in The Witches (novel) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: per WP:USERCATNO. Overly narrow scope. 1857a (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Family saga
- Propose merging Category:Family saga to Category:Family sagas
- Nominator's rationale: Shouldn't this be plural? If so, the child category should follow suit too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Split everything except Category:Family saga novels, Family saga, and Aga saga to Category:Family saga television series, and then Keep what's left as a topic category of the sort than should generally be singular. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: what is your opinion about Pppery's alternative? Marcocapelle (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Pppery @Marcocapelle But we still have Category:Memoirs, Category:Novels, etc. all in plural. Why keep saga instead of sagas? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Religious fiction
- Propose merging Category:Religious fiction to Category:Fiction about religion
- Nominator's rationale: There is no reason to split those concepts, is there? And the 'about Foo' wording is more clear. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose, the nomination is based on a misunderstanding. Subcategories of Category:Religious fiction contain fiction created by adherents of a particular religion. Religious fiction may be considered to be part of inspirational fiction as a genre. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle Is this differentiation based on sources? (And why isn't it explained in the categories)? In particular, Religious fiction does not explain its scope. How are we to know if the intended or current scope fits your understanding of it? If as you say this category is based on who wrote it, then it should not be under ' Fiction by genre' but under a different tree, 'Fiction by author's background' or such (we do have Category:Fiction by nationality only). Maybe rename to Category:Fiction by author's religious background? We need clear title, the current one is obviously super ambigious. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- For sure Christian novels and Christian drama are a thing, and this category tree of religious fiction apparently expanded from there. It happens more often that higher level categories are not exactly equivalent to a real life concept but still useful to connect lower level categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle Is this differentiation based on sources? (And why isn't it explained in the categories)? In particular, Religious fiction does not explain its scope. How are we to know if the intended or current scope fits your understanding of it? If as you say this category is based on who wrote it, then it should not be under ' Fiction by genre' but under a different tree, 'Fiction by author's background' or such (we do have Category:Fiction by nationality only). Maybe rename to Category:Fiction by author's religious background? We need clear title, the current one is obviously super ambigious. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment -- There may be a difference between fiction about religious topics and fiction written from a particular religious point of view. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Then at minimum we need a 'category about' description in these categories. Right now they don't address how they differ, which result in entries being added to one or another rather haphazardly. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - I can also see a distinction between religious fiction (i.e., from a religious point of view) and fiction about religion, but I'm not convinced we can reliably categorise individual works into one or the other rather than just producing endless arguments over whether a particular work is 'religious enough' to count as the former. FrankSpheres (talk) 10:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Historical fiction
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Historical fiction to Category:Fiction about history
- Nominator's rationale: While the parent category for this is Category:Works about history, this has a more ambiguous title, since historical can also mean "old". Worse, this sits atop many child categories that may need to be renamed from 'historical' to 'about history'. Since I don't know the gadget for mass nom, I am starting with this one and hope ore experienced category editors can help, assuming of course there's a general consensus to address this issue. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. Hmmm. I see the idea, but "Historical fiction" is the very well known standard term, used in the industry and by readers, whereas "Fiction about history" isn't. I doubt much confusion is actually likely. Of course most of the fiction is not "about" history, it is about the characters, who are just given a historical setting. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Johnbod Fair enough. Category:Fiction with a historical setting would be even more clear. Categories should not be ambiguous. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. I dont see this as an improvement to a very well established term. Rathfelder (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Historical fiction is not necessarily about history. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. 'Historical fiction' is a widely-used term so it should be kept as the common name; this standard usage resolves the ambiguity and doesn't necessitate a change. FrankSpheres (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Historical fiction is a defined, recognized literary genre that's existed for decades. Fiction about History feels like another of those made-up Wikipedia categories. Intothatdarkness 14:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Kintetsu
- Propose splitting Category:Kintetsu to Category:Kintetsu Group Holdings and Category:Kintetsu Railway
- Nominator's rationale: split per WP:C2D: Kintetsu Group Holdings and Kintetsu Railway. Most articles are about railways but not all. This was opposed for speedy renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
copy of speedy discussion
|
---|
|
- @Zxcvbnm and Gonnym: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians interested in hit and miss engines
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians interested in hit and miss engines ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: per WP:USERCATNO. Overly narrow scope. 1857a (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; any collaborative value appears to be limited to the single article hit-and-miss engine * Pppery * it has begun... 14:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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 characters with body dysmorphia
- Nominator's rationale: purge and rename, only keeping characters with a clearly established mental disorder. The question at stake is what the encyclopedic purpose of these categories is and I would answer that question by getting information about how real life disorders are portrayed in fiction. These nominations were opposed at speedy renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
copy of speedy discussions
|
---|
|
- @Zxcvbnm and Gonnym: pinging contributors to speedy discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Zxcvbnm and Gonnym: second ping attempt. It seems that pinging is disabled after a collapsed section. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Our categories should follow the articles they are based on. As I pointed out body dysmorphia redirects to body dysmorphic disorder and multiple personalities redirects to dissociative identity disorder. This is a very basic principle of our category system and one which the speedy criteria (C2D) is based on. If these redirects aren't correct, then whomever wishes should create an article there and then a new category can be created. However, I'm not sure such articles will survive AfD as the current targets are perfectly fine. Gonnym (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Faculty by university or college in Finland
- Propose renaming Category:Academics of the University of Helsinki to Category:University of Helsinki faculty
- Propose renaming Category:Academics of the University of Turku to Category:University of Turku faculty
- Nominator's rationale: Category:Faculty by university or college in Finland is split half and half between "Academics of.." and "..faculty". The rest of Scandinavia is all "..faculty". If these are agreed the others can be done speedily. Rathfelder (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support - the categories for the neighbouring countries all use faculty (Norway, Sweden, Russia), and it is Category:Faculty by university or college. No Finland-specific reason to use 'academics' AFAIK. Oculi (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support and would support cleaning up any others. Category:Academics is problematic, as is the existence if Category:Scholars and academics Category:Scholars. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Calling the academic staff of a university "faculty" is an Americanism, so that the rules on ENGVAR apply. If the Finnish term were anything like either term, I would support moving to that. Swedish appears to use a cognate word, but I do not know if it applies to the people as opposed to a section of the university. No doubt Norwegian will be similar, However, Finnish is an unrelated language. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I dont personally like this use of the word faculty, but I think our categories should be as consistent as possible. It doesnt make sense to try to apply ENGVAR in places where English is not the language. Rathfelder (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. "Faculty" is an Americanism not generally used elsewhere. Everywhere else it generally only refers to a collection of departments, not the academic staff within them. There is no reason whatsoever to standardise using the American term as opposed to the term used by other English-speaking countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- This is the term used to categorise all European academics outside the English speakers. Consistency is more important than anti-Americanism. By all means propose that we switch all the other countries to "Academics of ...." but it makes no sense to treat Finland differently. Rathfelder (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's not "anti-Americanism". It's questioning why what is almost exclusively an American term is being applied to other countries. WP:COMMONALITY surely applies. Everyone uses "academics". "Faculty" only has limited usage and means something entirely different in most other countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Much as I sympathise with your argument, repeated efforts to switch various countries from "faculty" to "academics" have been defeated. Rathfelder (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's not "anti-Americanism". It's questioning why what is almost exclusively an American term is being applied to other countries. WP:COMMONALITY surely applies. Everyone uses "academics". "Faculty" only has limited usage and means something entirely different in most other countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- It might be an idea to relist this as an AB nomination including all "faculty" subcategories. There should be consistency in a country one way or another, to begin with. Second, if there would be a choice, I would support harmonizing on academics unless there is a strong ENGVAR case for "faculty" in a particular country (but that is not the case here). Marcocapelle (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Doctors of Divinity
- Propose deleting Category:Doctors of Divinity ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Non-defining per WP:COPDEF and WP:CATDEF. This appears to be the only doctorate or degree category that includes people. We don't have Category:Doctors of Philosophy for every university professor or Category:Doctors of Medicine for every physician with an M.D., nor Category:People with master's degrees, etc. People are notable because of their writings or actions, not because they achieved a higher degree (although the degree may be incidental to someone's notability). --Animalparty! (talk) 07:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: Being a doctor of divinity is unusual and is clearly a defining characteristic. I would agree that being a doctor of philosophy or medicine is less defining, not sure if those would pass the test. (Animalparty, you might like to read the GNG, notability has nothing to do with writings or actions, it just comes down to significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. But that’s another discussion.) Moonraker (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Moonraker: it may be helpful to explain why this is a special case. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Marcocapelle, I don’t know about a special case, I was just saying that this is clearly defining… “A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people)…” That is the case with doctors of divinity. Since the Middle Ages, they have been a small and influential group of people in the world of theology. Moonraker (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Moonraker: it may be helpful to explain why this is a special case. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Moonraker: Is a Doctor of Divinity degree widely held to be more prestigious and significant than other higher degrees or honorary degrees, e.g. Doctor of Ministry, Doctor of Theology, Doctor of Letters, Doctor of Science or Legum Doctor? The article Doctor of Divinity indicates the degree can be either post PhD level or honorary. Is there something fundamental that unites D.D. holders beyond holding the same piece of paper, and that is distinct from, say Category:Theologians? We probably don't categorize M.D. holders because it would be nearly synonymous and substantially overlapping with Category:Physicians, and don't categorize PhD holders because it could combine physicists, art historians, economists, theologians, etc. that share very little functional similarities worth grouping. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Animalparty, I’d say the answer is yes, but all comparative judgements are subjective. Wikipedia:Defining says nothing about prestige or significance. We could find hundreds of categories that have no shred of prestige. It’s just a question of whether the characteristic is defining. We can of course disagree on that, but that is the issue. Moonraker (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Moonraker: Is a Doctor of Divinity degree widely held to be more prestigious and significant than other higher degrees or honorary degrees, e.g. Doctor of Ministry, Doctor of Theology, Doctor of Letters, Doctor of Science or Legum Doctor? The article Doctor of Divinity indicates the degree can be either post PhD level or honorary. Is there something fundamental that unites D.D. holders beyond holding the same piece of paper, and that is distinct from, say Category:Theologians? We probably don't categorize M.D. holders because it would be nearly synonymous and substantially overlapping with Category:Physicians, and don't categorize PhD holders because it could combine physicists, art historians, economists, theologians, etc. that share very little functional similarities worth grouping. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OCAWARD, it is mostly used as an honorary degree acquired after having become famous as a theologian writer. Being categorized as a theologian suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Marcocapelle, as you say, mostly used as an honorary degree, but WP:OCAWARD has exactly the same pivotal point as defining, is this or is it not defining? Moonraker (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:DEFCAT and the above. Here's to take a few random examples: William Temple (bishop) is notable for having been the Bishop of Manchester and subsequently the Archbishop of York and of Canterbury. The fact he happened to have been also a doctor of divinity is not a defining characteristic of his notability. Similarly, David Hope, Baron Hope of Thornes was Archbishop of York; John Brinkley (astronomer) is notable for his achievements in astronomy; William A. Williams (creationist) is notable for
being dumbwriting on of the first modern books promoting creationism; George Walker (soldier) is notable for his involvement in one military event, ... This might be a small sample, but scrolling through the others (which similarly include mostly other bishops, including archbishops of York and Canterbury, but also a few other odd cases), it certainly looks representative, and mighty persuasive. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC) - Keep but prune -- We should not categorise honorary DDs. Where it is the equivalent of D.Litt. or D.Sc. (which are higher than Ph.D.) we might categorise them, as this is a relatively rare distinction. If it happens that the university awards a DD for Ph.D. in theology, it should not be categorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Its a qualification, not a profession.Rathfelder (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians interested in rail transport In Victoria, Australia
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians interested in rail transport In Victoria, Australia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: per WP:USERCATNO. This category is overly narrow in scope. 1857a (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep and rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in rail transport in Victoria (Australia). Category:Rail transport in Victoria (Australia) has 14 subcategories and 36 articles, which is a broad enough scope for me. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment, category assignment is regulated by User:Renamed user himpgrtvbj/Userboxes/VicRailfan. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in rail transport. That parent category isn't diffused by anything but this Victoria category, so if there is a need for diffusion it should better take place at a higher level. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
April 30
Category:Former Warner Bros. Discovery subsidiaries
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 8#Category:Former Warner Bros. Discovery subsidiaries
Category:Natural gas fields west of Shetland
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT: only one article, and I don't think we have any other articles to populate it.
If we do sub-categorise Category:Natural gas fields in the United Kingdom, the bet place to start would be to split by the UK's constituent countries, i.e England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. "West of Shetland" is both a narrow and ill-defined scope. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom, small cat and no good reason to separate Shetland fields from other UK fields and islands.--Mvqr (talk) 11:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Television pilots
- Propose renaming Category:American television pilots to Category:American television series premieres
- Propose renaming Category:Australian television pilots to Category:Australian television series premieres
- Propose renaming Category:British television pilots to Category:British television series premieres
- Propose renaming Category:Canadian television pilots to Category:Canadian television series premieres
- Propose renaming Category:Japanese television pilots to Category:Japanese television series premieres
- Propose renaming Category:New Zealand television pilots to Category:New Zealand television series premieres
- Nominator's rationale: All of the television episodes in these categories are the first episodes of a television series (series premiere) but many do not fit the definition of a television pilot (a test episode to sell a TV series), specifically if the pilot wasn't the first episode or if the television series was commissioned without a pilot. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 08:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- It probably won't matter, but the nomination dates March 20 while this is the page for March 19. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose -- I understand pilots are test versions that are often not broadcast, so that they are not premieres. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm not sure how Category:Television pilots and its subcats do not end up including every first episode of every television series. Which I would think would be a hindrance to navigation. Maybe the usage of television pilot in categorisation needs to be restricted to pilots which were not also series premieres. - jc37 04:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Purge and alt rename to Category:Pilots of cancelled American television series etc., per discussion above. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete all. The first episode of a television series to be broadcast is not necessarily always the "pilot" per se — the "pilot" is a "proof of concept" episode that may or may not ever actually be broadcast to or seen by the general public (and even if it is, it still might not be as the first episode.) So I don't see a need to categorize television episodes for their purported pilot status, especially given how often the word "pilot" gets misused to mean "first broadcast episode" regardless of whether it was actually a proper pilot or not, and thus things categorized here may not actually be true pilots at all. Failed pilots that get burned off as standalone television specials might be notable as specials, but are not notable as pilots per se; pilots that do get broadcast as an actual episode of the series are notable as episodes of that series, but are not notable as pilots per se; and pilots that don't get broadcast (whether because the series never got picked up at all or because the pilot was never actually broadcast as part of the series run) are profoundly unlikely to ever be notable at all — so I don't see the value of categorizing for pilot status. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBchrch talk 18:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)- For me the question is, is a category for the first episode of television series worth keeping? I'm conflicted here as I can see valid points to have a category for the first episode of a series (and for the same reasons, one for the last episode) as those types of episode do tend to get a lot of research and academic discord around them. However, is our category system used by those people? That I don't know. Gonnym (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nomination and makes sense since not all series premieres are pilots necessarily. Some pilots are series premieres but can also but never aired episodes or even later episodes. "Pilot" has a more specific definition. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 16:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Films about psychopaths
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Films about psychopaths
- Nominator's rationale: delete, very subjective, being a psychopath is suspected from a character's behaviour but hardly ever formally established. These films are serial killer films, psychological thrillers, horror movies etc and already categorized as such. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBchrch talk 18:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator and per countless precedents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Wikipedians in Suzhou High School
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians in Suzhou High School ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Another overlooked high school alma mater category, this time discovered by accident while looking for small location categories. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator and many precedents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:American Roman Catholic bishops in South America
- Nominator's rationale: These are U.S. nationals who serve their episcopacy outside the U.S.A. so they are expatriate bishops. A rather long target but more accurate. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Question, is it really necessary to add "expatriate" in the category name? Or does it speak for itself that they are expatriates? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: the convention of the expatriates category tree is to include the word "expatriate". See e.g. Category:Brazilian expatriate actors in India, Category:Afghan expatriate musicians in Pakistan or the 122 subcats of Category:American expatriate sportspeople by country of residence.
The only exception I found is judges (e.g. Category:Dominica judges on the courts of Anguilla), which I think may be because the judges are often non-resident and hence not actually expatriate. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)- Ok that is clear. Then support for consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: the convention of the expatriates category tree is to include the word "expatriate". See e.g. Category:Brazilian expatriate actors in India, Category:Afghan expatriate musicians in Pakistan or the 122 subcats of Category:American expatriate sportspeople by country of residence.
Category:Wikipedians in the Outermost Regions of the European Union
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians in the Outermost Regions of the European Union ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Redundant container category containing only two empty categories, no article on Outermost Regions of the European Union so it's unclear to what this refers. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as overly specific. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Constructed languages with a Wikipedia
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 09:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Constructed languages with a Wikipedia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Not defining * Pppery * it has begun... 14:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- If you are going to get rid of it, I would just like to list the articles here: Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Lojban, Novial, Interlingue, Volapuk. And I have to say that I find this a very useful category for determining Conlangs that have achieved some sort of threshold of enough to warrant writing articles in them. I do not have any rationale at the moment regarding DEFINING. UserTwoSix (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as Non-defining. And I think a list should not be in article space, as it would be little more than navel-gazing or to satisfy a niche interest, although it might have some value in Wikipedia space (e.g. Wikipedia:Constructed languages with their own Wikipedias) for internal maintenance/reference purposes. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete this is way to much navel gazing anywhere in main space.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I'm going to oppose this. I think it is a useful category. UserTwoSix (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Wikipedians from the former Soviet Union
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 09:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians from the former Soviet Union ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: The entire Wikipedians from scheme is of dubious collaborative value, however this category is useless on top of that for reasons explained in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 17#Category:Wikipedians in the Confederate States - it serves as a political statement rather than a legitimate category of any sort. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment -- The definition is in fact Category:Wikipedians born in USSR, which is potentially valid, but is it useful? I doubt it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, the purpose of user categories by location is that people may well have local knowledge about the place where they live. That is not the case here. Even more so because being born does not imply that people have consciously lived under the Soviet regime. Editors may add themselves to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Soviet Union instead, if applicable, but this is not meant as a rename proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as overly specific. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Wikipedians by alma mater: St Paul's Co-educational College, Hong Kong
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: St Paul's Co-educational College, Hong Kong ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Overlooked high school alma mater category. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Defunct tennis tournaments in Czech Republic
- Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:C2C. A speedy nomination was opposed. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
copy of speedy discussion
|
---|
|
- @TSventon, Opencross, Redrose64, and Oculi: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@TSventon: The redirect link sounds good to me. In order to facilitate users' experience and practice then blank all the categories i created on Czech Republic named here, and reformulate them as redirect thus they will be easier to find on HotCat scroll list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opencross (talk • contribs)
- Rename - the oppose (by the creator) was gratuitous and should have been ignored. Oculi (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Rename for consistency with the tree that begins at Category:Sport in the Czech Republic. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: This edit didn't notify me (I don't know why not), so I doubt that it will have notified the others (TSventon, Opencross, Oculi) either. This edit will definitely not have notified TSventon (it wasn't signed), so my post now is by way of a courtesy notification. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Rename per nominator for consistency with other Czech categories. The category order issue can be resolved simply by using a sort key. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Rename per nominator (and BHG) for consistency with other Czech categories. TSventon (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:19th century people in Geneva
- Nominator's rationale: merge/rename, anachronistic categories in the tree of Republic of Geneva. The 16th to 18th century siblings have just been speedily renamed to a "Republic" format but that would not apply here. The Republic ceased to exist in 1798 (with a very short reestablishment in 1813-1815). The fact that people in these categories were born while the Republic was still there is not defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
copy of speedy discussion
|
---|
|
- Comment - I would suggest a merge to Category:People from the canton of Geneva as Geneva is the city. Oculi (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Happy with that. Rathfelder (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ditto for the botanists unless Rathfelder wishes to introduce 'by occupation' subcats for Category:People from the canton of Geneva. Oculi (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- The three botanists in the category are clearly from the city of Geneva though. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ditto for the botanists unless Rathfelder wishes to introduce 'by occupation' subcats for Category:People from the canton of Geneva. Oculi (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Category:Ukrainian genocide
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Ukrainian genocide ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: A WP:POVFORK Cat of Category:Anti-Ukrainian sentiment and Category:Massacres of Ukrainians. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 01:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SYNTH; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukraine genocide (2nd nomination), which at the moment is almost unanimously in favor of deletion largely for similar reasons. The Holodomor is not the Bucha massacre. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per the reasons given above, even more so now that the AfD has closed as delete. --QueenofBithynia (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep There is a lot of news and academic publication on this subject in recent weeks.[2] The article Ukraine genocide was deleted because its text combined two subjects (Holodomor and 2022 Russian action). The category “Ukrainian genocide” does not. —Michael Z. 16:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- There are currently several articles which deal with the subject or question of Ukrainian genocide in 2022:
- Bucha massacre
- Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
- International Criminal Court investigation in Ukraine: quotation: “ICC Prosecutor Karim Ahmad Khan stated that the ICC could "exercise its jurisdiction and investigate any act of genocide, crime against humanity or war crime committed within Ukraine."”
- Ukraine v. Russian Federation (2022): full title “Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation)”
- War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Genocide
- “What Russia should do with Ukraine”: a Russian state media article that’s been called a “genocide handbook” by subject expert Timothy Snyder.
- —Michael Z. 16:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- There are currently several articles which deal with the subject or question of Ukrainian genocide in 2022:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Would renaming to Category:Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (per Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine) work? * Pppery * it has begun... 13:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukraine genocide (2nd nomination). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Pppery: it might work, but it would be a narrower and rather different category, because a "Category:Claims of genocide" would be about the claims rather than the events. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Polish Army traditions
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Polish Army traditions to Category:Polish military traditions
- Nominator's rationale: To match the Category:British military traditions and like, and avoid confusion w/ regards whether we can include Navy and Airforce traditions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support as consistent with Category:Military traditions and wider scope to cover air force and navy is common sense.--Mvqr (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Snake Island (Black Sea)
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Snake Island (Black Sea) to Category:Snake Island (Ukraine)
- Nominator's rationale: Consistent with recently moved parent article Snake Island (Ukraine). Super Ψ Dro 07:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Rename - As the nominator said, it's consistent. Also, it seems to me that the suggested name would be more helpful during a search. Radzy0 (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People using unaccredited degrees
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 8#Category:People using unaccredited degrees
Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Homestar Runner Wiki
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 09:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Homestar Runner Wiki ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: "Wikipedians by website" categories have dubious collaborative value at best. They're definitely useless when there isn't even an article on the website. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as overly specific. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Wikipedians in Mexico and Central America
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 09:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians in Mexico and Central America ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Mexico and Central America user categories (added later)
- Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Wikipedians in Mexico and Category:Wikipedians in Central America; this bizarre amalgamated container category does not aid navigation. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Pppery and Piotrus: I have taken the liberty to add the parent category to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- No objection. I was looking at just "Wikipedians in" categories so didn't notice that the parent was similarly empty. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ditto. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- No objection. I was looking at just "Wikipedians in" categories so didn't notice that the parent was similarly empty. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as overly specific. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Wikipedians in DFW, Texas
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 8#Category:Wikipedians in DFW, Texas
Category:My Life as a Teenage Robot
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 8#Category:My Life as a Teenage Robot
15 to 21 days old
April 29
Category:NBC Sports Radio stations
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 7#Category:NBC Sports Radio stations
Category:Medieval Iranian people by occupation
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Medieval Iranian people. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 07:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Iranian people by occupation to Category:Medieval Iranian people
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary intermediate category. There arent any other Medieval Fooish people by occupation categories. Rathfelder (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Current category is overly specific. CharlesWain (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Albums produced by David Wrench
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Albums produced by David Wrench ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Was led to believe subject had more than just one production credit based on the formatting of this table, but it turns out they're all for mixing/recording instead so there's no point in this. QuietHere (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Can't this just be speedied. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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.
Military of Iceland
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 7#Military of Iceland
Category:Soja
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 7#Category:Soja
Category:Internet people
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 7#Category:Internet people
Category:Sorbian-American culture
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 7#Category:Sorbian-American culture
Category:Mayan chiefdoms of the Yucatán Peninsula
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 7#Category:Mayan chiefdoms of the Yucatán Peninsula
April 28
- Propose merging Category:AIDS-related deaths in British Columbia to Category:AIDS-related deaths in Canada
- Propose merging Category:AIDS-related deaths in Alberta to Category:AIDS-related deaths in Canada
- Propose merging Category:AIDS-related deaths in Newfoundland and Labrador to Category:AIDS-related deaths in Canada
- Propose merging Category:AIDS-related deaths in Nova Scotia to Category:AIDS-related deaths in Canada
- Propose merging Category:AIDS-related deaths in Ontario to Category:AIDS-related deaths in Canada
- Propose merging Category:AIDS-related deaths in Quebec to Category:AIDS-related deaths in Canada
- Propose deleting Category:AIDS-related deaths in Canada by province or territory
- Nominator's rationale: Cluster of almost entirely small categories without any compelling reason why they would be necessary. Most likely this was attempted by analogy to Category:AIDS-related deaths in the United States, in which most (but not all) of the entries in the category are subcategorized by individual state — but that tree encompasses 486 articles, while this one just encompasses 42, which means there's a size argument for subdividing the US category which the Canadian category can't match. As always, there's just no rule that Canada always has to automatically do everything exactly the same way as the United States — there's just isn't any rule that if WPUS subcategorizes something by state, then WPCANADA automatically has to subcategorize our equivalent category by province to match. It's a question of numbers, not of "automatically structure everything exactly the same way the US does on principle", and the Canadian category just doesn't have the numbers to need diffusion by province.
I also don't see the fact that Ontario and Quebec surpass five entries, while all of the other four categories are stuck at just one or two, as a reason to keep those while only upmerging the others; this is one of those areas where "some provinces have subcategories while others don't" isn't useful, and instead none of them should exist until all ten of them can exist. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support this. Place of death is not very defining. Rathfelder (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
High school alma mater categories 2
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete all Timrollpickering (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Hilton College (South Africa) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Kimbolton School ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Mayo College ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Shrewsbury School ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: St. Joseph's Institution, Singapore ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Trinity College, Kandy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Wah Yan College, Hong Kong ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: JNV ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Kingston Grammar School, Kingston upon Thames ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Kodaikanal School ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: St. Joseph's College, Hong Kong ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: St. Stephen's College, Hong Kong ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Magdalen College School, Oxford ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added 02:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC))
- Nominator's rationale: I listed these separately from #High school alma mater categories since the articles on the schools don't refer to themselves as "high schools" (usually using some local synonym instead), but the same logic that applies there seems to apply here. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete all per nominator and per lots of precedents. The purpose of user categories is to facilitate collaboration, but these categs don't do that: their only role is clique-forming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete -- I would be qualified to use the Shrewsbury one, but do not see the point. I suspect that most of these are Secondary Schools, but names vary. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Wikimedians who oppose rebranding the WMF
- Propose deleting Category:Wikimedians who oppose rebranding the WMF ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate advocacy user category. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep; the WMF is very obviously related to Wikipedia and it's not clear to me why users should be hindered in expressing their opinions about it. jp×g 17:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Users should not be prohibited from expressing their opinions of the WMF. They should be prohibited from misusing the category system to make a point, as the linked guideline says. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as per above view.--Bduke (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, obvious case of WP:USERCATNO. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, I created User:Alexis Jazz/W?F (inspired by Guy Macon at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 1#A minor gesture of protest: W?F) but nobody notified me of this discussion. The linked guideline says
This includes any grouping of users by support for or opposition to a person, object, issue, or idea, especially when they are unrelated to Wikipedia.
Now, somebody please explain to me how rebranding the WMF is unrelated to Wikipedia. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)- It doesn't matter whether it's related to Wikipedia, as there is also extensive precendent against Wikipedians by support/opposition of a Wikipedia issue categories. Every time I start a deletion discussion on a user category, it gets polluted with "let's randomly ignore established consensus" non-arguments like this. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Also, the wrong guideline is being cited above. WP:OC/U#Advocacy is a paraphrase of the actual policy, which is WP:NOTADVOCACY, and which the paraphrase has a link to. That policy is clear: "Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Wikipedia: namespace". --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- User categories are in the Category namespace, not the Wikipedia namespace or on user pages. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- But this category is only used to express an opinion on the W?F on userpages. Are you seriously claiming that an opinion I post to my userpage doesn't count as an opinion if it is in the form of a category, template, or a wikilink to an essay or guideline? --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- User categories are in the Category namespace, not the Wikipedia namespace or on user pages. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- That is exactly what WP:NOTADVOCACY says. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Then let's bundle in Category:Inclusionist Wikipedians, Category:Atheist Wikipedians and many others populated by userboxes which document an editor's belief and might prompt readers to consider sharing that view. Certes (talk) 09:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think I may have identified a near-universal principle akin to "If the headline contains a question. The answer is no". The new principle: If someone says "That is exactly what X says", you will find that X says pretty much the opposite. In this case, WP:NOTADVOCACY says "Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Wikipedia: namespace, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project. However, article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Some people on this website make a hobby of condemning Nazis, which has nothing to do with this website, but we cannot condemn W?F, which has everything to do with this website. As someone in this category, I'd point out that precedent does not equal consensus. I assure Pppery that they won't see you white-knighting for them; you'll never get the recognition you seem to be chasing.Chris Troutman (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would support deleting Category:Wikipedians who oppose Nazis too. And I assure you I'm not motivated by trying to white-knight for someone or achieve recognition, merely trying to actually enforce the rules. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- If I've misjudged you, I apologize. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would support deleting Category:Wikipedians who oppose Nazis too. And I assure you I'm not motivated by trying to white-knight for someone or achieve recognition, merely trying to actually enforce the rules. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Guy Macon. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. I would prefer it if people who want to make their position clear did so by their editing rather than via categories or by anything on their user page, but consensus is against me, and, if any political opinions are allowed, then opinions about Wikipedia should be. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Guy Macon. I do not understand the perceived need to police harmless user categories. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep -- what's wrong with this category? It's harmless. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 21:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:USERCATNO: "Categories which group users by advocacy of a position", "Categories which group users by dislikes of any type". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, internal advocacy of this type is fine. —Kusma (talk) 12:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per well reasoned and long precedent of similar deletions here. VegaDark (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per discussion here. Huggums537 (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'd also like to add that advocacy specifically says,
...especially when they are unrelated to Wikipedia.
But, since this category is related to Wikipedia advocacy does not apply. Huggums537 (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'd also like to add that advocacy specifically says,
- Keep per Kusma. A useful medium of conveying community opinions to the WMF. – SD0001 (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per Brownhaired Girl and others. Keep votes that do not justify why there should be an exception to WP:USERCATNO should be discarded. ValarianB (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Example College
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure); @Pppery: would you make sure that this is implemented correctly? Marcocapelle (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Example College ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Nonsense user category - Template:User college student should be made to use proper category suppression rather than relying on a placeholder category. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep unless empty. I agree that this is useless junk .. but I don't want to see this category cluttering up Special:WantedCategories, so I oppose deletion unless the template stops populating it. If @Pppery can assure me that they can modify the template to stop it populating this category, then I will support deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)- @BrownHairedGirl: I've removed everything except Template:User college student/testcases (which, for the record, was Template:User college student + Template:User college student/doc + Template:User college student/sandbox) in Special:Diff/844245682/1085169806 and Special:Diff/1085169827. The remaining page can be removed in a similar fashion by adding
|nocat=yes
to all three calls to {{test case}} * Pppery * it has begun... 21:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: I've removed everything except Template:User college student/testcases (which, for the record, was Template:User college student + Template:User college student/doc + Template:User college student/sandbox) in Special:Diff/844245682/1085169806 and Special:Diff/1085169827. The remaining page can be removed in a similar fashion by adding
- Delete. Changing my !vote 'cos @Pppery has resolved all my concerns. This useless can category can safely be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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.
High school alma mater categories
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete all Timrollpickering (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Acton-Boxborough Regional High School ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Bishop McGuinness Catholic High School (Oklahoma) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Cheyenne Mountain High School ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Denver School of the Arts ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Essex District High School ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Shenzhen Middle School ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Robertsdale High School ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: The Vanguard School (Colorado) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: B.E.H.S(2), Latha ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (pertains to Basic Education High School No. 2 Latha)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: B.E.H.S (5) Aungpan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Frankfurt American High School, Frankfurt, Germany ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added 20:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC))
- Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians by high school * Pppery * it has begun... 19:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- How did you find these specific high school categories? —Wei4Earth (talk, contribs) 20:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- I found everything up to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: The_Vanguard School (Colorado) by using a database query to look "Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: X" where X is in a category containing the words "high school". Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: B.E.H.S(2), Latha and Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: B.E.H.S (5) Aungpan were found by doing a similar search where "X" was a redlink, and Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Frankfurt American High School, Frankfurt, Germany was found by accident when composing #High school alma mater categories 2 above (It didn't show up in the initial query because Frankfurt American High School, Frankfurt, Germany was originally red, and I failed to put two and two together and just created the redirect when I encountered it in the redlink search). I enjoy querying the database for hidden cruft and nominating it for deletion. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- How did you find these specific high school categories? —Wei4Earth (talk, contribs) 20:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete all per nominator and per lots of precedents. The purpose of user categories is to facilitate collaboration, but these categs don't do that: their only role is clique-forming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Pranksters
- Propose deleting Category:Pranksters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: I don't think this is an especially useful category, as it seems to be a catch-all for people who do "funny" protests or publicity stunts, random comedians, and god knows what else. (Femen and Wu Ming are both in here, as is Banksy.) I can see how a much, much more narrowly defined subcategory of this could be useful (something like "people associated with prank television/radio programs" or something) but I don't think a large category for "people who have, at some point, said something untrue in an arguably funny way" is particularly useful. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Procedural oppose, in the rationale nominator suggests that the category needs purging or splitting, which is no longer feasible after the category is deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Solomon Islands Roman Catholic bishops
- 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: soft delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Solomon Islands Roman Catholic bishops ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: I can't find a single bishop who was a native of the Solomon Islands. All who served in the Solomon Islands were foreign nationals. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Clarify: we have Category:Roman Catholic bishops in the Solomon Islands for the (non-native) bishops of the dioceses there. Do other countries have a similar category duplication/division between "bishops born in place X" and "bishops ruling in place X"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Reply Yes. There are parallel tree structures for bishops "by country" and "by nationality". In places like Oceania, it is quite typical that the bishops of the 19th and 20th centuries would have been European expatriates / missionaries. Only in the 21st century do we begin to find nationals (citizens of Foo) who also serve as bishops in Foo. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Maki-e artisans
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Maki-e artisans to Category:Japanese lacquerware artists
- Nominator's rationale: Maki-e is a particular type of lacquer decoration, but the only two members of this category are already in the target category, which has 7 members. Le Deluge (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Japanese lacquer artists
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Japanese lacquer artists to Category:Japanese lacquerware artists
- Nominator's rationale: Newly-created category that seems to duplicate category created in 2012 Le Deluge (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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:War drama films
- Propose merging Category:Lost war drama films to Category:Lost war films
- Propose merging Category:War drama films by country to Category:War films by country
- Propose merging Category:American war drama films to Category:American war films
- Propose merging Category:Argentine war drama films to Category:Argentine war films
- Propose merging Category:Australian war drama films to Category:Australian war films
- Propose merging Category:Austrian war drama films to Category:Austrian war films
- Propose merging Category:Azerbaijani war drama films to Category:Azerbaijani war films
- Propose merging Category:Bangladeshi war drama films to Category:Bangladeshi war films
- Propose merging Category:Belgian war drama films to Category:Belgian war films
- Propose merging Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina war drama films to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina war films
- Propose merging Category:British war drama films to Category:British war films
- Propose merging Category:Canadian war drama films to Category:Canadian war films
- Propose merging Category:Chinese war drama films to Category:Chinese war films
- Propose merging Category:Croatian war drama films to Category:Croatian war films
- Propose merging Category:Czech war drama films to Category:Czech war films
- Propose merging Category:Danish war drama films to Category:Danish war films
- Propose merging Category:Dutch war drama films to Category:Dutch war films
- Propose merging Category:Egyptian war drama films to Category:Egyptian war films
- Propose merging Category:Estonian war drama films to Category:Estonian war films
- Propose merging Category:Finnish war drama films to Category:Finnish war films
- Propose merging Category:French war drama films to Category:French war films
- Propose merging Category:German war drama films to Category:German war films
- Propose merging Category:Greek war drama films to Category:Greek war films
- Propose merging Category:Hong Kong war drama films to Category:Hong Kong war films
- Propose merging Category:Indian war drama films to Category:Indian war films
- Propose merging Category:Indonesian war drama films to Category:Indonesian war films
- Propose merging Category:Iranian war drama films to Category:Iranian war films
- Propose renaming Category:Israeli war drama films as Category:Israeli war films
- Propose merging Category:Italian war drama films to Category:Italian war films
- Propose merging Category:Japanese war drama films to Category:Japanese war films
- Propose merging Category:Lebanese war drama films to Category:Lebanese war films
- Propose merging Category:Mexican war drama films to Category:Mexican war films
- Propose merging Category:Norwegian war drama films to Category:Norwegian war films
- Propose merging Category:Philippine war drama films to Category:Philippine war films
- Propose merging Category:Polish war drama films to Category:Polish war films
- Propose merging Category:Romanian war drama films to Category:Romanian war films
- Propose merging Category:Russian war drama films to Category:Russian war films
- Propose merging Category:Serbian war drama films to Category:Serbian war films
- Propose merging Category:Slovak war drama films to Category:Slovak war films
- Propose merging Category:South African war drama films to Category:South African war films
- Propose merging Category:South Korean war drama films to Category:South Korean war films
- Propose merging Category:Soviet war drama films to Category:Soviet war films
- Propose merging Category:Spanish war drama films to Category:Spanish war films
- Propose merging Category:Swiss war drama films to Category:Swiss war films
- Propose merging Category:Taiwanese war drama films to Category:Taiwanese war films
- Propose merging Category:Thai war drama films to Category:Thai war films
- Propose merging Category:Turkish war drama films to Category:Turkish war films
- Propose merging Category:Ukrainian war drama films to Category:Ukrainian war films
- Propose merging Category:Yugoslav war drama films to Category:Yugoslav war films
- Propose merging Category:War drama films by decade to Category:War films by decade
- Propose merging Category:1900s war drama films to Category:1900s war films
- Propose merging Category:1910s war drama films to Category:1910s war films
- Propose merging Category:1920s war drama films to Category:1920s war films
- Propose merging Category:1930s war drama films to Category:1930s war films
- Propose merging Category:1940s war drama films to Category:1940s war films
- Propose merging Category:1950s war drama films to Category:1950s war films
- Propose merging Category:1960s war drama films to Category:1960s war films
- Propose merging Category:1970s war drama films to Category:1970s war films
- Propose merging Category:1980s war drama films to Category:1980s war films
- Propose merging Category:1990s war drama films to Category:1990s war films
- Propose merging Category:2000s war drama films to Category:2000s war films
- Propose merging Category:2010s war drama films to Category:2010s war films
- Propose merging Category:2020s war drama films to Category:2020s war films
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per the rationale agreed at [3]. There are no criteria for inclusion other than arbitrary and subjective application. Usage of the categories is completely ambiguous because, while some of the articles mention the word "drama", the vast majority do not. The point is that, apart from documentaries and some propaganda releases, all war films are dramas. We can accept such cross-genres as the comedy war film or the romantic war film or the science fiction war film as distinct offshoots of the main war film genre because comedy, romance and science fiction are genres in their own right, but drama is not. These categories are superfluous and present an unnecessarily difficult maintenance task. Deletion is not an option and upmerges are needed. A good point made at the Western drama CfD is that
not every interaction and permutation of genre needs a category
. NGS Shakin' All Over 14:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)- Hello. I originally created this category with the mind of Allmovie's definition of the genre "A type of drama set against the backdrop of war, focusing on how the larger conflict affects and/or threatens human existence in the story. Less action-packed than traditional combat films and containing touches of melodrama, this type of film usually takes place in one of two settings. Dramas set close to the front -- Paths of Glory, Come and See, and All Quiet on the Western Front -- focus attention on the way soldiers or civilizations cope with the threat of death and destruction. Films set back at home either during or after the conflict -- Hope and Glory, Mrs. Miniver and The Best Years of Our Lives -- generally study how society manages daily realities during times of war" I don't know how consistent this is across any genre theory, but generally speaking, it probably is not. I have no real push to keep it unless others can keep it together with more sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, Andrzejbanas. Actually, it isn't your original that's the problem. As with so many others, including the Westerns categories which were deleted last year, the issue is the indiscriminate creation of sub-categories by User:Sc2353. Most of them are SMALLCATS with little hope of expansion and the way they are utilised is both arbitrarily and subjectively. NGS Shakin' All Over 16:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Having thought about this, I think there is a case for retaining both Category:War drama films and Category:War drama film stubs so I've removed those two from the proposal. As I've said, the original and it's stub collection are not the problem. The issue is the indiscriminate creation of an unnecessary mass of country and date categories that are being applied subjectively and, with the possible exception of the American and British ones, will never amount to anything other than SMALLCATs. I've left the lost films one in as a SMALLCAT. NGS Shakin' All Over 05:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hello. I originally created this category with the mind of Allmovie's definition of the genre "A type of drama set against the backdrop of war, focusing on how the larger conflict affects and/or threatens human existence in the story. Less action-packed than traditional combat films and containing touches of melodrama, this type of film usually takes place in one of two settings. Dramas set close to the front -- Paths of Glory, Come and See, and All Quiet on the Western Front -- focus attention on the way soldiers or civilizations cope with the threat of death and destruction. Films set back at home either during or after the conflict -- Hope and Glory, Mrs. Miniver and The Best Years of Our Lives -- generally study how society manages daily realities during times of war" I don't know how consistent this is across any genre theory, but generally speaking, it probably is not. I have no real push to keep it unless others can keep it together with more sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose The nominator's rationale is fundamentally undermined by his argument that "Drama" is not a legitimate genre. The American Film Institute clearly disagrees. War drama films are a legitimate genre with a substantial number of exponents. There may be a legitimate argument for upmerging some of the decade and country based categories based on how sparsely populated they are, but by proposing to merge Category:War drama films into Category:War films this suggests that the nominator is seeking to eradicate the sub-genre as a category altogether, rather than just tidying up sub-categories. Betty Logan (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Drama is not a genre that can be used in alliance with another genre because the only non-drama films are documentaries, news films, some propagandas and the like. Whether you are discussing war, historical, biopic, romance, disaster, horror, sci-fi, whatever – they are all dramas. You appear to think that the laziness of sites like AFI, BFI, IMDb, etc. in naming drama as their genre parameter is "legitimate". If a film is clearly a mixture of war and romance, then it is a war romance and not merely a drama. If a film is clearly a mixture of horror and sci-fi, then it is a sci-fi horror and not merely a drama. Anyway, having further considered the response by Andrzejbanas, I've removed his original category from the proposal (see above) because the excessive and subjectively applied date and country subs are the issue, just as they were for the Westerns project. NGS Shakin' All Over 05:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nominator hasn't given adequate thought to the distinction between a war drama film and a war comedy film — but war comedy films also very much exist, which means it is not true that all war films are automatically drama films. Romantic comedy films exist, which means it is not true that all romantic films are automatically drama films. Horror comedy films exist, which means it is not true that all horror films are automatically drama films. Science fiction comedy films exist, which means it is not true that all science fiction films are automatically drama films. And on and so forth.
In the real world, we do directly apply "drama" as a straight genre label for films that aren't comedies, so the category system does need to be able to distinguish "war drama" films from "war comedy" films, because it is simply not true that all war films are automatically war drama films by definition.
No prejudice against individual renomination if there are any categories in the list that are problematic on WP:SMALLCAT grounds instead, but I'm not spelunking to find out if there actually are any — but a mass batch merger on these grounds, no. Bearcat (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Drama is not the sibling of comedy but the parent. Any film or stage play which employs role-playing actors is a drama. While comedy and tragedy were the original two drama genres, there are now several more including romance, sci-fi, horror and so on. Drama is an umbrella term for all genres. So, while war comedy or war romance or war sci-fi are true cross-genres which can comfortably interact, war drama is not because one is a part of the other and the term is illogical. NGS Shakin' All Over 16:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Whatever you may think about the way the words should be used, Wikipedia goes with and acts based on the way words actually are used. Regardless of what the technical definition of drama may be, the actual real-world usage is that comedy is fiction that is funny, while drama is fiction that is not funny — and since that's the real world usage, that's the Wikipedia usage too, because Wikipedia goes by real world usage. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Drama is not the sibling of comedy but the parent. Any film or stage play which employs role-playing actors is a drama. While comedy and tragedy were the original two drama genres, there are now several more including romance, sci-fi, horror and so on. Drama is an umbrella term for all genres. So, while war comedy or war romance or war sci-fi are true cross-genres which can comfortably interact, war drama is not because one is a part of the other and the term is illogical. NGS Shakin' All Over 16:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict):Any fictionalised portrayal is dramatised, but that is clearly distinct from how Drama is treated as a genre in a modern sense. Pretty much every databases/catalog I have ever come across accepts Drama as distinct genre. For example, the AFI Catalog classifies Citizen Kane as a "drama", Psycho as a "horror" and Casablanca as a "romance". While there are some minor variations this is pretty much the standard approach. The British Film Institute also classify Citizen Kane as a drama. It is you prerogative to disagree, but this is the standard approach taken by databases and catalogs also academics who write on the subject of genre. Wikipedia has to reflect published writing on genre. As editors it is not in our gift to diverge from that. Betty Logan (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment None of these categories have CFD tags on them announcing this discussion except one parent category which I believe means that discussion could procedurally be closed. Have the category creators all been informed of this discussion? These are basic steps that are taken in initiating any deletion discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment, if the primary problem is that some of the articles mention the word "drama", while the vast majority do not, then the likely solution is to purge articles that don't. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:United States National Recording Registry albums
- Propose deleting Category:United States National Recording Registry albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category and redundant to Category:United States National Recording Registry recordings. Multiple articles are under both categories. - QuasyBoy (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The sole rationale for deletion here seems to be that Category:United States National Recording Registry recordings is poorly diffused. All that means is that someone should complete the diffusion (remove the parent category from articles in all subcategories), not undo it, given that there are several non-album articles in the former. It may also make sense to delete both this category and the parent Category:United States National Recording Registry recordings as non-defining, but that should be left for a separate discussion. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Black-owned companies of the United States
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 7#Category:Black-owned companies of the United States
Category:WarnerMedia
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 6#Category:WarnerMedia
Category:Discovery, Inc.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 6#Category:Discovery, Inc.
Category:WarnerMedia networks
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 6#Category:WarnerMedia networks
April 27
Category:Italian reserve football teams
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Keep Timrollpickering (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Italian reserve football teams to Category:Italian youth football teams
- Nominator's rationale: The category does not list reserve teams and such category litteraly makes no sense as Italy has only one reserve team (Juve U23). Dr Salvus 18:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - it's easier to keep Juventus F.C. Under-23 there; the rest is already present at Category:Football academies in Italy. Nehme1499 19:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with Nehme. I hadn't noticed that cat shown by him. Dr Salvus 19:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Then shouldn't Category:Italian reserve football teams become a redirect to Category:Football academies in Italy? Marcocapelle (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: A reserve team (Juventus F.C. Under-23) is different from an academy (Juventus F.C. Youth Sector). Nehme1499 17:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Category:Dutch reserve football teams etc. GiantSnowman 19:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose as proposed; the category should remain, but all except Juve U23 should be stripped out as they are not reserve teams - they are already all correctly in Category:Football academies in Italy. At the moment Juve is the only Italian reserve team, but in theory every top pro club could launch one. If anyone really objects to a one-member cat it could be moved up to Category:Reserve team football, but that already has a few one-member national subcats. 23:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People’s Embassies of Belarus
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:People’s Embassies of Belarus ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: A category that seems to have no scope for expansion and includes only its own main article probably should not exist. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete -- These are not diplomatic missions, but rather groups of activists against the current Belorussian regime. Even if we had articles on the "embassies" in each country. I do not think we would need this. The one article is already in a diaspora category. Hence no need for a wider merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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.
People by populated place in Spain
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 7#People by populated place in Spain
Category:Women writers (early Medieval)
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Women writers (early Medieval) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary intermediate category. I dont think there are any other early medieval biography categories. The 5 subcategories are already in Category:Women writers (medieval) Rathfelder (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Fishing in Lithuania
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 7#Category:Fishing in Lithuania
Category:Fishing in Belgium
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 6#Category:Fishing in Belgium
Category:User TeX
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 7#Category:User TeX
Category:Big 12 Conference men's basketball standings templates
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Match naming conventions of the templates contained in this category fuzzy510 (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose nomination. Instead of renaming these categories, it should be the templates within this category that should be renamed to reflect the full conference name instead of abbreviations to bring them in line with analogous templates for other sports, e.g. Template:2022 Big 12 Conference football standings, Template:2022 Big 12 Conference baseball standings, Template:2020 Big 12 Conference women's soccer standings, Template:2021–22 Big 12 Conference women's basketball standings, Template:2014 Big 12 Conference volleyball standings. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that there should be uniformity on these, and while I think some are negligible (Big 12 Conference/Big 12, for example), I think referring to the MEAC as the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference or the SWAC as the Southwestern Athletic Conference kinda flies in the face of WP:COMMONNAME. It also directly contradicts the precedent set when the Big Ten pages were moved Talk:Big Ten Men's Basketball Tournament a couple years ago. fuzzy510 (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Jweiss11. It's not the category that should be renamed, but the templates themselves. The COMMONNAME discussion should be a separate one, on the talk page of those parent articles. If consensus changes and the article names are moved, then I'm open to re-naming the standings templates as such. SportsGuy789 (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Colonial Athletic Association men's basketball standings templates
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 02:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Change name of conference to match naming of templates category contains fuzzy510 (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose nomination. Instead of renaming these categories, it should be the templates within this category that should be renamed to reflect the full conference name instead of abbreviations to bring them in line with analogous templates for other sports; see Big 12 Conference nomination above. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Jweiss11. It's not the category that should be renamed, but the templates themselves. SportsGuy789 (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference men's basketball standings templates
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Change name of conference to match naming of templates category contains fuzzy510 (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose nomination. Instead of renaming these categories, it should be the templates within this category that should be renamed to reflect the full conference name instead of abbreviations to bring them in line with analogous templates for other sports; see Big 12 Conference nomination above. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Jweiss11. It's not the category that should be renamed, but the templates themselves. SportsGuy789 (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Southwestern Athletic Conference men's basketball standings templates
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Change name of conference to match naming of templates category contains fuzzy510 (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose nomination. Instead of renaming these categories, it should be the templates within this category that should be renamed to reflect the full conference name instead of abbreviations to bring them in line with analogous templates for other sports; see Big 12 Conference nomination above. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Jweiss11. It's not the category that should be renamed, but the templates themselves. SportsGuy789 (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Western Athletic Conference men's basketball standings templates
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Change name of conference to match naming of templates category contains fuzzy510 (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose nomination. Instead of renaming these categories, it should be the templates within this category that should be renamed to reflect the full conference name instead of abbreviations to bring them in line with analogous templates for other sports; see Big 12 Conference nomination above. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Jweiss11. It's not the category that should be renamed, but the templates themselves. SportsGuy789 (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference women's basketball standings templates
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Since the category was first created, the naming conventions for these templates shifted to using the abbreviated name of the conference. The category should reflect this. fuzzy510 (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose nomination. Instead of renaming these categories, it should be the templates within this category that should be renamed to reflect the full conference name instead of abbreviations to bring them in line with analogous templates for other sports; see Big 12 Conference nomination above. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Jweiss11. It's not the category that should be renamed, but the templates themselves. SportsGuy789 (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference men's basketball standings templates
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Since the category was first created, the naming conventions for these templates shifted to using the abbreviated name of the conference. The category should reflect this. fuzzy510 (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose nomination. Instead of renaming these categories, it should be the templates within this category that should be renamed to reflect the full conference name instead of abbreviations to bring them in line with analogous templates for other sports; see Big 12 Conference nomination above. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Jweiss11. It's not the category that should be renamed, but the templates themselves. SportsGuy789 (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Bakery cafés
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 7#Category:Bakery cafés
April 26
Category:Historyproject.org.uk interviewee
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Historyproject.org.uk interviewee ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCATEGORISATION, not WP:DEFINING Le Deluge (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete -- This is essentially a Performance category. Possibly listify. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Sellwood, Portland, Oregon
- Propose renaming Category:Sellwood, Portland, Oregon to Category:Sellwood-Moreland, Portland, Oregon
- Nominator's rationale: Per parent article: Sellwood-Moreland, Portland, Oregon. Perhaps navbox should be moved as well for consistency? --Another Believer (Talk) 22:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Category:Vegan bodybuilders
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Vegan bodybuilders to Category:Vegan sportspeople
- Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently two articles in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBchrch talk 23:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment -- Is bodybuilding a sport? Is the intersection of Vegan and bodybuilder a notable one? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- One is a professional bodybuilder so he is surely is a sportsman. The other is not so much a professional. But both are already in Category:Vegan sportspeople so merging is equivalent to deleting in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I am unconvinced this intersection is notable so it should be deleted. That they are already both in the target as well means that functionally even the nominator is supporting deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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.
Seafood companies
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 4#Seafood companies
Category:People who opposed the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Propose deleting Category:People who opposed the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Is it ok to categorize people by their views? Wikisaurus (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well, we have categories like Category:Anti–Iraq War activists and Category:Anti–Vietnam War activists. --HPfan4 (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps it can be renamed to be "Anti—2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine activists"? MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 04:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- The name needs to capture the point of the category which is that these are Russian people. – Fayenatic London 09:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- It needs to be renamed, I would suggest Russian anti—2022 invasion of Ukraine activists. Inclusion should be significant activism, not merely stating opposition.--Mvqr (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- One can create Category:Anti–Russian invasion of Ukraine activists and move the activists there (although almost all of the people in the category are not anti-war activists, they are just celebrities who occasionally opposed the invasion). Wikisaurus (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Russian people who opposed the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Opposing Putin is a brave act for a Russian, so that the normal rule against categories on people's political POV should not apply. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Peterkingiron got it right, it should concern Russian people. Maybe a bit shorter: Category:Russian opponents of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support move to Category:Russian opponents of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. It's by far the best name suggestion. Charles Essie (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- I second renaming the category to Russian opponents of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and to narrow the inclusion criteria to significant activism. I can understand how standing up to this invasion is a very huge risk due to all the repression. --Minoa (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Even with the Russian category, just because something is brave does not mean it is defining. Mere opposition to something is rarely if ever defining. With biographies this is just an invitation to category clutter, and we already have too much of that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Russian people who opposed the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine 92.113.168.56 (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Russian people who opposed the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, it would be good to have a category about Russians against the war. -- 2804:248:f677:f300:4b3:a2a4:dec6:1482 (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Not needed. -Koppapa (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Koppapa do you have a reason for this rational? MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 14:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Weak delete.Comment. People well known as anti-war activists would be a reasonable category. But that one is artificially constructed. To be against this war is not a defining feature of these people. Any sane and informed person would be against this war. Something opposite like Category:Promoters the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine might be more reasonable, but we already have Category:Russian propagandists. My very best wishes (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)- @My very best wishes Do you have anything against Russian people who opposed the 2022 invasion of Ukraine? MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 23:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Let's see. Who is in this category? Natalia Poklonskaya. How come? She personally put to prison a lot of Ukrainian activists in the Russia-occupied Crimea. Who else? Alex Konanykhin. Yes, of course, that guy created a company for paid editing in WP. Do you think his announcement of the "bounty" was an act of bravery? No, that was an advertisement. As about others, they are great people, but again, any sane and informed person is against this war; this is hardly anything significant. Being Russian citizens does not make them special. My very best wishes (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- In addition, many Russians just object to the war in general, but do not really condemn the invasion. A typical view can be found here [4]. "no problem can be solved by war" The issue here is not the war. This is just war by Ukraine. "the terrible and bloody decision that none of us could influence and predict." This is not true and denial of responsibility because there was already a military aggression by Russia against Georgia in 2008, against Ukraine in 2014 and Second Chechen war in 2000. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that the category should be limited to activists. Just expressing an opinion may be dangerous but is not a reason why people are notable. Perhaps something like Category:Russian activists against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, that would be a little more reasonable category, but still very artificial. But whatever. I do not think that keeping such category would be hugely problematic. My very best wishes (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I generally believe that there is no harm in keeping any categories, unless they are outright misleading. That one is not. For example, Natalia Poklonskaya does belong to the category. One just does not need to conclude that she is a supporter of Ukrainian people, a good person or brave. My very best wishes (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- In addition, many Russians just object to the war in general, but do not really condemn the invasion. A typical view can be found here [4]. "no problem can be solved by war" The issue here is not the war. This is just war by Ukraine. "the terrible and bloody decision that none of us could influence and predict." This is not true and denial of responsibility because there was already a military aggression by Russia against Georgia in 2008, against Ukraine in 2014 and Second Chechen war in 2000. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Let's see. Who is in this category? Natalia Poklonskaya. How come? She personally put to prison a lot of Ukrainian activists in the Russia-occupied Crimea. Who else? Alex Konanykhin. Yes, of course, that guy created a company for paid editing in WP. Do you think his announcement of the "bounty" was an act of bravery? No, that was an advertisement. As about others, they are great people, but again, any sane and informed person is against this war; this is hardly anything significant. Being Russian citizens does not make them special. My very best wishes (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I still think Category:Russian opponents of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is the best title because not all Russian opponents of the war are necessarily activists. Charles Essie (talk) 04:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Category:18th-century bishops in the United Kingdom
- Nominator's rationale: UK came into being in 1801. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- This doesnt seem very helpful unless we are going to rename the whole of Category:18th-century British people Rathfelder (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- "British" also describes citizens of the Kingdom of Great Britain. The UK as a state did not exist in the 18th century. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- We have some other occupational categories "....of Great Britain". I dont think we need the century or the Kingdom. Rathfelder (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Anachronistic in the current title. Also, there is a different geographic scope. The Kingdom of Great Britain never covered any areas in Ireland, which would mean Irish bishops have to be excluded from the category. Dimadick (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Renameto Category:18th-century British bishops At worst Category:18th-century bishops in Great Britain. There is no need to include "kingdom", as GB (and British) are unambiguous. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)- I have struck out my vote, because I have voted again below. Sorry. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Rename per Peterkingiron above. --Just N. (talk) 11:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I cannot support @Peterkingiron: suggestion as it would change the scope from "by country" to "by nationality". Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:18th-century bishops in the Kingdom of Great Britain or Category:18th-century bishops in Great Britain or Category:Bishops in the Kingdom of Great Britain, per nom. This is a tree by country, not by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Not many editors appreciate the distinction between "by country" and "by nationality". Rathfelder (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Reply The nomination is unconcerned with nationalities; it concerns two states that existed in different periods of time - GB & UK. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- REname but to Category:18th-century British bishops or Category:18th-century bishops in Great Britain. The content is such that it is a container for England, Wales, and Scotland with a Catholic subcat. There is no need to include "Kingdom of", which is mere verbosity. My first target might be about nationality, rather than the location of the see, which would mean that an English bishop serving an Irish diocese would belong, which might be undesirable, as the object is to show where they ministered, rather than where they were from. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think overall there is the least opposition against Category:18th-century bishops in Great Britain. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think that while there might be merit in having geographic entities in the island of GB, there is no case for non-geographic entities not to have the full name of the state. What's a few bytes between friends? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- It makes no difference whether GB means the island with off-islands or the kingdom of GB. They are essentially the same thing. Category names should be kept brief to limit category clutter. I do not support LL's policy of making category names long for spurious precision in their scope. Where further precision is needed, the appropriate place for it is in a headnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Senators of the LXIV Legislature of Mexico
- Nominator's rationale: In Mexico, Senate terms are six years in length and span two three-year legislatures, so by-legislature categories in the Senate should cover two legislatures at a time. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, I started this category and support the proposed renaming User:Moondragon21 00:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Roman numerals are for historians use. Wikipedia is for the usability for normal people/users. --Just N. (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy rename for consistency. However the category and its siblings should ultimately be merged. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete All these members of legislature by specific meeting of the legislature are just invitations to category clutter and we should rid ourselves of everyone of them. I have seen way too many articles with 5 plus such categories to see them as justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Category:Senators of the 60th and 61st legislature of Mexico
- Nominator's rationale: Use Roman numerals to be consistent with other categories and pages of this type in Mexico. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Roman numerals are for historians use. Wikipedia is for the usability for normal people/users. --Just N. (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Justus Nussbaum: The parent articles are numbered in Roman numerals here, e.g. LX Legislature of the Mexican Congress, so if that's your concern, I'd take it to RM for a total of 16 pages. I also recognize I inadvertently...created the other cat because I'm working with HotCat and was missing the old one. Oops! Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy rename for consistency. However the category and its siblings should ultimately be merged. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: This is part of an effort to diffuse the parent category, Category:Members of the Senate of the Republic (Mexico), by state represented (not applicable for all senators thanks to proportional representation) and by legislature served. Similar work is being done on the Chamber of Deputies side, where the main members category had 2,600 titles. Furthermore, we have many stubs not maintained in years in this field and in some cases the politicians have gone on to further offices. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete All these members of legislature by specific meeting of the legislature are just invitations to category clutter and we should rid ourselves of everyone of them. I have seen way too many articles with 5 plus such categories to see them as justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Reality television contestants by country
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 4#Reality television contestants by country
Category:Megamind video games
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Megamind video games ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Only one entry and no potential for further Indagate (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Megamind per nom. Only one of the games appears independently notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to the Megamind category per rationale. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:British lieutenant colonels
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 4#Category:British lieutenant colonels
Category:Burial sites of the House of Burke
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 4#Category:Burial sites of the House of Burke
Category:House of Burke
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 4#Category:House of Burke
Category:Counts Palatine of Germany
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename as proposed. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: rename, "Germany" is anachronistic, this all refers to the Holy Roman Empire before 1806. For example the territory of the Palatinate of Lotharingia is not part of current Germany but was part of the Holy Roman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support We seem to be moving most early Germany categories to HRE, though German would still be the appropriate demonym in most cases. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Wikipedian vector graphics editors
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 4#Category:Wikipedian vector graphics editors
Category:Dresses worn on the red carpet at the Academy Awards ceremonies
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 4#Category:Dresses worn on the red carpet at the Academy Awards ceremonies
Category:Infobox musical artist with missing or invalid Background field
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 4#Category:Infobox musical artist with missing or invalid Background field
April 25
Category:Leaders of American trade unions
- Propose renaming Category:Leaders of American trade unions to Category:American trade union leaders
- Nominator's rationale: Many American trade unions operate outside of the United States as internationals and are not strictly "American trade unions." To clear this up, I recommend renaming and purging this category of unionists who are American nationals. User:Namiba 17:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think the location of the union is more significant that the nationality of its leader. Maybe we should rename Category:Trade union leaders by nationality to make that clearer.Rathfelder (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose -- The present name is clear. The target is not. The important thing is the main location of the union, not the nationality of its leader. Even if it has international operations too, it is still an "American" Union. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Most of these are by definition international unions. Some of the leaders are in fact not even US nationals. Sorting people by the location of the organization they work for is not typical as far as I can tell. We sort individuals based on their nationality. The other option is to delete this category altogether, which is also acceptable to me.--User:Namiba 12:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:American trade unionists, this is the far better populated category. We do not need a fork, both categories contain union leaders. (It is unlikely that mere passive membership of a union is even mentioned in an article.) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- I am comfortable with a merge (and rename) but we should nominate the whole tree to do so.--User:Namiba 13:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Surely this category for the person who actually leads the trade union. As opposed to ordinary trade unionists, which includes trade union officials and activists who do not actually lead it, who are categorised as trade unionists if it's a major part of their life. It's therefore not a fork, but a subcat. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBchrch talk 14:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)- Reflecting on this further, I think this category should be renamed but containerized.--User:Namiba 12:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Rename American is meant to modify the person not the organization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment.
Many American trade unions operate outside of the United States as internationals and are not strictly "American trade unions."
Actually, most of them are only "international" inasmuch as they may also have branches in Canada. "International" is just a common fiction used in American trade union titles to imply they're more important than they really are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Criticism of work
- Propose merging Category:Criticism of work to Category:Critique of work
- Nominator's rationale: The rest of the template and main page is named critique of work, so it makes sense to have a uniform name. Pauloroboto (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance
Kind regards, Pauloroboto.
Pauloroboto (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support To match the main article, critique of work. Dimadick (talk) 04:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
The nominator is a Single Purpose Account that has been adding categories to various pages and has added links within article text on several pages, apparently in an effort to bolster search results and page view counts on the fringe topic on which they edit. This proposed merge matches the category name to one of the articles of interest to the editor. Category:Critique of work has been proposed for deletion and should be deleted, not enhanced to match one editor's POV article content. SPECIFICO talk 13:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Reverse merge, not all criticism is part of Critique of work, for example Tang ping isn't, but Critique of work is part of Criticism of work. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Reverse merge. --Just N. (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category:Critique of work has been speedy deleted per WP:C1 on March 24. At this stage, the question is whether Category:Criticism of work should be renamed to Category:Critique of work or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBchrch talk 13:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- As there is no content left for a reverse merge the nomination has become moot. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Category:Theaters in Derbent
- 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: soft merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 02:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Theaters in Derbent to Category:Derbent
- Nominator's rationale: The member page Judeo-Tat theatre is a cultural genre, not a building. – Fayenatic London 10:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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:User kik
- Propose renaming Category:User kik to Category:User ki
- Nominator's rationale: Rename to use ISO-639 1 code rather than ISO-639 2 code. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Category:User kua
- Propose renaming Category:User kua to Category:User kj
- Nominator's rationale: Rename to use ISO-639 1 code rather than ISO-639 2 code. Alternately delete since the category contains only a userbox and no actual users. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
User lub
- Propose renaming Category:User lub ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:User lu
- Propose renaming Category:User lub-N ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:User lu-N
- Nominator's rationale: Rename to use ISO-639 1 code rather than ISO-639 2 code. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Category:Bakeries based in California
- Propose renaming Category:Bakeries based in California to Category:Bakeries of California
- Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the other "Bakeries of ...X" categories. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy rename per C2C, although the entire tree should be renamed to "Bakeries in X" convention for consistency with other types of businesses. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree and planned to propose separately. Support moving all categories to "in", if possible. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support - convention in Category:Companies by country is 'of Foo'. Oculi (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Prefer Category:Bakeries in California, but the nom's target would do. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, if all other categories are changed to "Bakeries in ..." for consistency (see above discussion). ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
April 24
Category:Final musical releases
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Final musical releases ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Final studio albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Previously discussed many years ago at this CfD. Although consensus can change, I believe the rationale to delete from the original discussion remains valid. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Please specify your rationale Chchcheckit (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- "This is categorisation by a trivial characteristic."
- "Many of these recordings will have been made without the knowledge that they would be the last one."
- "I could see the posthumous albums making their way in."
- "Death [of an artist] clearly indicates nothing."
- And specifically to the broadness of the final musical releases category, no one can ever know what a final release is much less it being a defining aspect of the album. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Please specify your rationale Chchcheckit (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
K yr argument won, have a nice deletion!! Chchekit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chchcheckit (talk • contribs) 00:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Populated places in Agstafa District
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename Timrollpickering (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Main article is called Aghstafa District. — Golden call me maybe? 19:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People from Agstafa District
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename Timrollpickering (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:People from Agstafa District to Category:People from Aghstafa District
- Nominator's rationale: Main article is called Aghstafa District. — Golden call me maybe? 19:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Agstafa District
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename Timrollpickering (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Agstafa District to Category:Aghstafa District
- Nominator's rationale: Main article is called Aghstafa District — Golden call me maybe? 19:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Belgian chroniclers
- Propose renaming Category:Belgian chroniclers to Category:Flemish chroniclers
- Nominator's rationale: These are all mediaeval people and mostly described as Flemish. Rathfelder (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Chroniclers, Belgian is anachronistic (agree with nom on that) but they are not obviously Flemish people. If not merged, rename to Category:Chroniclers from the Holy Roman Empire and populate. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm happy with Category:Chroniclers from the Holy Roman Empire. Rathfelder (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Category:Chénier Cell members
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Front de libération du Québec members. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Chénier Cell members to Category:Front de libération du Québec members
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This cell of the FLQ is long gone and by definition will never have many more notable members than it currently does (4). User:Namiba 17:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBchrch talk 18:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Music memes
- Propose renaming Category:Music memes to Category:Songs in internet memes
- Nominator's rationale: This seems to be a non-defining categorization with its current name. An attempt in 2018 to rename the category to something more defining resulted in no consensus.
- I think "Songs in internet memes" or "Songs in memes" makes the defining characteristic less ambiguous and more exact. However, if going into anything more specific is not advisable, I would not be against blowing it up and starting over as the cat has existed for 8 years. – The Grid (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I feel like Category:Musical internet memes would be a better name as the songs themselves are what are usually what is the meme in the first place. Rockford the Roe boop my snoot pet the goats 16:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, not a defining characteristic of these songs. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, not a defining characteristic. I don't think any proposition is better than WP:TNT. --Muhandes (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Rename sjh (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. This type of information seems better conveyed in list form, like in List of viral music videos, List of viral videos, or List of Internet phenomena. bibliomaniac15 04:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to clarify whether the category should be renamed or deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBchrch talk 18:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment It should be Category:Music-related Internet memes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Wescher (talk • contribs) 18:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Unfortunately, there are actual music memes (not heavily memed songs) such as The Lick and Weird SoundCloud, meaning that there may be some need for a "music memes" category. However, heavily memed songs are purely original research and should not be included. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Plays about rabbis
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Merge Timrollpickering (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Plays about rabbis to Category:Plays about Jews and Judaism
- Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBchrch talk 18:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Norse history and culture articles
- 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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Norse history and culture articles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep IMO this falls under the SMALLCAT exception as Category:Articles by WikiProject is a well-established tree. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Palatinate of Lotharingia
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Palatinate of Lotharingia
- Nominator's rationale:
mergedelete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. There isn't even a main article. Merging is not needed, the subcategory is already part of Category:Lotharingian people. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Probably merge -- I think this is the right solution, but it will be necessary to consider how to prevent this merger upsetting the structure of the parents.
Would a reverse merge of Category:Lotharingia be better?Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- No it wouldn't, Category:Lotharingia primarily contains the kingdom of Lotharingia. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- No further comment -- please close as nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Easter traditions by country
- Propose merging Category:Easter traditions by country to Category:Easter traditions
- Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with a single subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. More sibling subcategories can and likely will be created in the future. We often start with one. The parent category has 60+ entries, it's easy to see that several other countries can have similar categories. Category:Christmas traditions by country is a good example of where this can end up in a little while. If you ask nicely instead of trying to take us a step back, I can help create and sort some entries. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Categorization by country is a common way to do things, and I think it can be informative in this case, too. The fact that there is only one entry seems simply due to the fact that noone has started it earlier. Looking at Category:Easter traditions, there are a number of them where categories for other countries would make sense. In fact I have just created one for Germany, as there was already a tradition there. Daranios (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Please do not create a category for a single article. There should be at least a handful. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: Thanks, good point. But together we have found now four entries. And I think this category does have potential for expansion (with WP:SMALL being the only guideline I have seen so far which councils against the creation of categories with very few members), as e.g. Easter bread, Easter fire, Easter egg and Egg hunt all have sections referring the respective versions of the traditions in Germany, and de:Kategorie:Brauchtum (Ostern) has a number of entries specific to Germany which do not yet have an English translation. Daranios (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Merge - there are not enough articles for a 'by country' scheme. Easter egg should certainly not be put in any country categories. Oculi (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Given CfDs massive backlog, the time this discussion will be open is sufficient for any creation of new categories to take place. If no more such categories are created by the time this discussion is closed, then it should be merged. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- There was enough content to create categories for Italy and Greece... so now we have more categories :P Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- No there is not, they only contain 2 articles. Revert creation of these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Category:City councillors
- Propose renaming Category:City councillors to Category:Councillors
- Propose renaming Category:Women city councillors to Category:Women councillors
- Nominator's rationale: Many of the subcategories include councillors from places which are not cities. The anchor article is Councillor. Rathfelder (talk) 09:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose the article "councillor" covers various different types of councillor. If these categories are to be not a grabbag of various kinds of councillor, they should keep "city" in their names. Or if you want to broaden it a little, it could be called "municipal". But there are other forms of councillor that are not related to urban or settle areas, like county councillors, which would include rural regions. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Merging to Category:Local political office-holders by country is fine by me -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- They are already "a grabbag of various kinds of councillor", including plenty of county councillors. If we want to differentiate them that needs to be done on a country basis. What counts as a city varies from country to country and over time as does the structure of local government. Or possibly the whole thing should be merged into Category:Local political office-holders by country. Rathfelder (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Alt rename to "municipal councillors" per anon and per several of the subcategories. Municipal is broad enough for the content that is currently in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Local political office-holders by country per Rathfelder. "City" only tends to be a generic term for an urban area in North America. In most parts of the world most urban settlements are actually towns. But many of the people in these categories aren't even town councillors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I do not object against merging per se, but then all country subcategories should be merged too. Otherwise we will have one merged top category with two subcategories per country.Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am striking my previous comment as I realize that in every country city councillors may become or remain a subcategory of local office-holders. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think some of the country categories are properly called city councillors. What counts as a city varies between countries. Rathfelder (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Local political office-holders by country. Not only if there a problem with the city/town/borough/whatever else it is called issue, but in some places the people are not members of a council, they are aldermen, or commissioners, and there are other titles used. We should focus on the general position, not break out by specific title.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Mass psychogenic illness
- Propose merging Category:Mass psychogenic illness to Category:Mass hysteria
- Nominator's rationale: merge (or reverse merge), the two topics are mostly overlapping. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: suggest keeping Category:Mass psychogenic illness as the surviving category, as mass psychogenic illness is the primary article. "Mass psychogenic illness" appears to be the more modern term and avoids some of the problematic history of "mass hysteria" or "hysteria" in general.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Reverse merge (Category:Mass hysteria into Category:Mass psychogenic illness). Our article is Mass psychogenic illness, Mass hysteria being a redirect thereto. JBchrch talk 21:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Category:Bell towers in France
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Merge Timrollpickering (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Bell towers in France to Category:Bell towers and Category:Towers in France
- Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article. The list contains a few links to French city halls, but there aren't any stand alone articles about bell towers. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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:User hak-0
- 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: Already deleted per WP:G7. (non-admin closure) JBchrch talk 21:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:User hak-0 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:UCFD/I#Wikipedians by 0-level language knowledge * Pppery * it has begun... 14:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oops. Was unaware of that before I created it. Speedy delete. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • C • L) 15:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per G7, CX Zoom is the creator and sole contributor. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Video games featuring parallel universes
- 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 rename. WP:C2C applies; compare Category:Anime and manga about parallel universes, Category:Comics about parallel universes, Category:Fictional characters from parallel universes, Category:Films about parallel universes, Category:Novels about parallel universes, and Category:Short stories about parallel universes in the Category:Parallel universes in fiction category tree. (non-admin closure) 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This is the only category of this type that uses "featuring" rather than "about". It should not contain games where parallel universes are not an integral aspect of the gameplay or plot. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy rename per C2C, compare Category:Films about parallel universes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Card battle video games
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 2#Category:Card battle video games
Crowd collapses and crushes
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Merge Timrollpickering (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Crowd crushes in the 2020s to Category:Crowd collapses and crushes
- Propose merging Category:Crowd crushes in Africa to Category:Crowd collapses and crushes
- Propose merging Category:Crowd crushes in North America to Category:Crowd collapses and crushes
- Nominator's rationale: merge, not yet enough content to diffuse, after merging the top category will consist of 5 articles, one redirect and one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Semantics (linguistics)
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Merge Timrollpickering (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Semantics (linguistics) to Category:Semantics
- Nominator's rationale: Same topic, there's no need to have two categories. The computer science subfield is already differentiated at Category:Programming language semantics and Category:Semantics is full of natural language pages. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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.
April 23
People by populated place in Germany
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Merge all Timrollpickering (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose merging:
- Category:People from Remagen to Category:People from Ahrweiler (district)
- Category:People from Blaubeuren to Category:People from Alb-Donau-Kreis
- Category:People from Blaustein to Category:People from Alb-Donau-Kreis
- Category:People from Erbach an der Donau to Category:People from Alb-Donau-Kreis
- Category:People from Laichingen to Category:People from Alb-Donau-Kreis
- Category:People from Schelklingen to Category:People from Alb-Donau-Kreis
- Category:People from Herdorf to Category:People from Altenkirchen (district)
- Category:People from Wissen to Category:People from Altenkirchen (district)
- Category:People from Kalbe to Category:People from Altmarkkreis Salzwedel
- Category:People from Klötze to Category:People from Altmarkkreis Salzwedel
- Category:People from Burgkirchen an der Alz to Category:People from Altötting (district)
- Category:People from Westerstede to Category:People from Ammerland
- Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, these categories consist of only 1-3 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support extremely small categories are a hinderance to navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Songs in memory of Matthew Shepard
- Propose deleting Category:Songs in memory of Matthew Shepard ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: All redirects, making verification considerably more difficult Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as sufficiently populated to be useful. The nomination is factually incorrect, as Scarecrow (song) is currently an article, not a redirect. Cultural depictions of Matthew Shepard#Songs indicates notability of this person (or rather, his death) as a topic for songs. However, the nominator has also nominated that list for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural depictions of Matthew Shepard. – Fayenatic London 20:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Categories where all the members are redirects have no navigational use and have been deleted in the past. This should be no exception. I note there is actually one member, so should still be deleted under WP:SMALLCAT. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Such precedents for deletion as I recall were categories of songs by an artist that were all redirects to the same artist's albums. This case is different. WP:Categorizing redirects is permitted and sometimes useful. – Fayenatic London 21:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that a link to a redirect is helpful for people looking for additional information? What will a reader find having clicked on the redirect? Nothing. Zilch. Won't find an referenced analysis of the song's reference to Shepard, actually won't find anything. Are you convinced that only redirect songs cats have been deleted? Richhoncho (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- You have a point, and there is scope to review the usefulness of the redirect targets. E.g. American Triangle formerly pointed to the list (where the entry for the song includes a link to the album), before user:BizarreLoveTriangle changed it to point to the album.[5] Even so, I acknowledge that (i) the connection to Shepard is uncited, and (ii) in that instance inclusion in the category adds nothing to the info in the list. Even so, I still consider the category a valid sub-cat of Category:Songs in memory of deceased persons, showing that multiple songs were written to mark this death. – Fayenatic London 19:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have more than a point, you are elevating the NN to the notable by bypassing WP:CATV, even WP:V and and every other verifiability and notability guidelines to try and save a cat with only one article. The redirect linkage is surplus to requirements, because a bluelink to Shepard, correctly, is on the album page. I repeat, nothing is gained by this category. Richhoncho (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- You have a point, and there is scope to review the usefulness of the redirect targets. E.g. American Triangle formerly pointed to the list (where the entry for the song includes a link to the album), before user:BizarreLoveTriangle changed it to point to the album.[5] Even so, I acknowledge that (i) the connection to Shepard is uncited, and (ii) in that instance inclusion in the category adds nothing to the info in the list. Even so, I still consider the category a valid sub-cat of Category:Songs in memory of deceased persons, showing that multiple songs were written to mark this death. – Fayenatic London 19:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that a link to a redirect is helpful for people looking for additional information? What will a reader find having clicked on the redirect? Nothing. Zilch. Won't find an referenced analysis of the song's reference to Shepard, actually won't find anything. Are you convinced that only redirect songs cats have been deleted? Richhoncho (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Such precedents for deletion as I recall were categories of songs by an artist that were all redirects to the same artist's albums. This case is different. WP:Categorizing redirects is permitted and sometimes useful. – Fayenatic London 21:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, all information that Wikipedia has to offer on this topic is contained in article Cultural depictions of Matthew Shepard which is already in the category tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Categorization of redirects is explicitly supported by WP:REDCAT, and a reader browsing via category would find a useful collection of articles to read via the redirects. Addressing some points from other !voters: Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- The category does not only contain redirects
- Some have cited WP:SMALLCAT, but this category has the potential for growth
- The connection of "American Triangle" to Shepard is now verified
- So you think that "Rufus Wainwright sings backing vocals on the track "American Triangle", which is about Matthew Shepard, a gay college student who was brutally murdered in 1998" passes WP:CATDEF on the redirect? Mentioning the subject is not necessary defining. FWIW, If I saw a songs about category with that amount of information I'd automatically remove. It's not defining and category clutter. Sending readers to an article to read one line already apparent to the reader is not helpful. And to further confuse the matter and reduce any defining any claim, Cultural depictions of Matthew Shepard claims the song is dedicated to MS, whereas the album is claimed to be dedicated, inter alia, to MS. As for this category has potential growth, let it be recreated when that has happened. Richhoncho (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I do think that the subject of "American Triangle" is a defining feature of the song. You're right that the content at Songs from the West Coast was a little thin, and I'll expand it. But CATDEF is about what's out in the sources, not what's in the article. As for the potential for growth, I presume that the guideline was written intentionally, and that the term wouldn't be there if there was consensus that size right now was the only thing that mattered. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I doubt there is any growth in the category at all. It is an event that happened 23 years ago, and, unfortunately, there are much more recent similar events to write songs about. And my point is that no matter how much 'American Triangle' is about MS, there is nothing for the reader to learn, and that is what any category is for. Richhoncho (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. I wouldn't be surprised if songs continue to be written about Shepard, but I actually meant that there's potential for growth in Wikipedia of coverage of already existing songs about him. It's very likely, for example, that Considering Matthew Shepard meets notability criteria. On "nothing for the reader to learn": are we expecting more from categories than information for the reader about what belongs in the category? For example, are the entries in Category:2022 songs supposed to say much more than the year of release in order to belong? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Any song has to pass WP:NSONG too. Richhoncho (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. I wouldn't be surprised if songs continue to be written about Shepard, but I actually meant that there's potential for growth in Wikipedia of coverage of already existing songs about him. It's very likely, for example, that Considering Matthew Shepard meets notability criteria. On "nothing for the reader to learn": are we expecting more from categories than information for the reader about what belongs in the category? For example, are the entries in Category:2022 songs supposed to say much more than the year of release in order to belong? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I doubt there is any growth in the category at all. It is an event that happened 23 years ago, and, unfortunately, there are much more recent similar events to write songs about. And my point is that no matter how much 'American Triangle' is about MS, there is nothing for the reader to learn, and that is what any category is for. Richhoncho (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I do think that the subject of "American Triangle" is a defining feature of the song. You're right that the content at Songs from the West Coast was a little thin, and I'll expand it. But CATDEF is about what's out in the sources, not what's in the article. As for the potential for growth, I presume that the guideline was written intentionally, and that the term wouldn't be there if there was consensus that size right now was the only thing that mattered. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Songs in memory of deceased persons
- Nominator's rationale: WP:EUPHEMISM. This was the best rename I can think of, but I feel at the least it should have a rename that conveys the same information without euphemizing death. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Most songs about people are written after their death, I do not consider that very defining. In other words, a merge to Category:Songs about celebrities would be ok too, then follow the outcome of the ongoing discussion about that category.Marcocapelle (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comments only. The subcats of this category should have also been nominated to harmonise the proposal. Many of the members of the subcats of Category:Songs in memory of deceased persons are also in the parent AND, if existing, the songs about the individual category. There is also a category Category:Songs inspired by deaths which should also be considered at this juncture. I am not unsympathetic to Marcocapelle's suggestion.--Richhoncho (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Meanwhile this discussion has been closed as delete. Under that circumstance my earlier comment can be translated as rename to Category:Songs based on real people and populate. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as being way too wide to be a useful category. Categories need to link related items together, not be based on what are at best only superficial similarities. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Category:Super Collider (band) albums
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep. WP:SNOW. Precedent is that "[name of artist] albums" are acceptable as part of a greater category tree even if only one album was released by that artist. (Non-admin closure.) (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Super Collider (band) albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Category of one. Not needed. Toddst1 (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per precedent and as the exception to WP:SMALLCAT. Per WP:ALBUMS, "previous discussions have formed the consensus that a category for an artist's albums should be created even if they have only released one album". StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - per WP:SMALLCAT: "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist". The scheme here is Category:Albums by artist; the rationale is that the artist is (obviously) a defining characteristic of the album. Oculi (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per the above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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:Legal systems of UN member states
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:Legal systems of UN member states ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:BANREVERT category created by blocked sock Epq0 yesterday. They are the only person to have populated it and I’ve now reverted thos inclusions per BANREVERT and the category is empty. Category:Law by country already exists. DeCausa (talk) 07:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as pointless. There is no need to distinguish whether polities are UN members, as opposed to non-members or jurisdictions that are only part of a UN member (e.g. Scloand or Nevada). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep under the name "National systems of law" or "National legal systems". We do not have a category that unite all national systems of law. --212.114.109.229 (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- We have a Law by country category already. DeCausa (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- @DeCausa Category:Law by country contains only subcategories and articles such as Marital rape laws by country or Clothing laws by country. But where is the category that unites all national systems of law: Law of the United Kingdom, Law of the United States, Law of the Netherlands, Law of France etc? 212.114.109.229 (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- We have a Law by country category already. DeCausa (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Note Above IP has been blocked for using a webhost. Likely, it’s the sock ban avoiding. DeCausa (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant and, with respect to UN membership, non-defining. JBchrch talk 01:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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:User eml:pra
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Propose deleting Category:User eml:pra ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: "eml:pra" is not a valid language code. The sole member of this category has been inactive since November 2021. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: seems the language code is valid for Emiliano-Romagnolo language. Gonnym (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- "eml" by itself is a valid (albeit deprecated) code. I'm not seeing where "pra" is recognized, and it's not mentioned in the article. Anyway, the standard way of separating language codes is a dash rather than a colon, so rename if kept. * Pppery * it has begun... 12:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: seems the language code is valid for Emiliano-Romagnolo language. Gonnym (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:User eml. For the record, Template:User eml-pra shows that "pra" refers to Parmigiano dialect (pramzàn). – Fayenatic London 19:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- No objection to merging. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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.
Video games set in a fictional location
- Propose deleting Category:Video games set in a fictional location ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Video games set in a fictional country ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Video games set on fictional islands ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Video games set on fictional moons ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Video games set on fictional planets ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Utterly non-defining category family - many games are set in a "fictional location". (While genre can be important - e.g. "space opera" - whether it takes place on a fictional planet or a real-life planet heavily fictionalized is irrelevant.) Note that the creator of said category was blocked for sockpuppetry and creation of inappropriate categories. Aside from it being non-defining, there is no clear inclusion criteria either - how much of a work needs to be on an island? What if the island is the size of Great Britain? Australia? etc. SnowFire (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, clear example of WP:OCMISC in the context of categorization by location. Being set in a real location is useful to track the portrayal of the location in popular culture, but a fictional location is just a random name. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Upmerge to the counterparts without "fictional". For example, "Video games set on fictional islands" should go into "Video games set on islands". "Planets/moons" should go into "Video games set in outer space". "Country" would be a problem because the entire category tree would need a reckoning in that case, not just video games. I for one would probably support deletion of both the entire "country" category tree as well as "fictional location" itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- I do not agree with an overall merge for islands or countries. By all means recategorize to an ocean category if it concerns a fictional island in a real ocean, or recategorize to a continent category if it concerns a fictional country in a real continent. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as valid & well-populated intersections of e.g. (for islands) Category:Video games set in a fictional location, Category:Video games set on islands and Category:Works set on fictional islands. If not kept, upmerge to all parents. But I see no rationale for wiping out categories of video games without simultaneously dealing with all other media in Category:Works by fictional setting, e.g. Category:Films set in a fictional location. There was consensus to keep most of those at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 September 13#Category:Works set in fictional locations, excluding fictional populated places. (The top one was subsequently renamed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 14#Category:Works set in fictional locations, categories by continent were merged at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 8#Fictional countries in real continents, and fictional galaxies were deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 4#Category:Works set in fictional galaxies.) – Fayenatic London 20:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Personally, I would be happy to delete the entire structure as well, but one thing at a time (and note that at least one of the votes in that discussion complained about a trainwreck, i.e. too much being discussed at once). For video games specifically, if this category was truly populated, it would be added to 70%+ of all VG articles - truly non-defining in the context of video games, at least. More generally, it's describing a distinction without a difference. If there's a Spider-Man game that's set in a heavily fictionalized version of "New York City", I guess it doesn't qualify? But if there's a Superman game set in "Metropolis" but that includes obvious NYC-inspired elements, it does? There's no actual difference here, both settings are NYC-ish and inspired, yet this category structure would include one but not the other. I already mentioned above the trivial example of whether a sci-fi setting happens to make up the name of a star completely, or use a real-life star (but invent wild details), is just not important. The "realism" of such a sci-fi work might be interesting and critically discussed, but whether a real star/planet name was used is the most trivial possible version of realism. SnowFire (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The setting of video games, or games being set in fictional places, is actually a reasonable defining feature, but I tend to agree that we should handle the broad question of all types of works and not just the focus of video games. I would think that a category like "Fictional countries in video games" would be the more reasonable approach. --Masem (t) 03:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete This is not very defining. Especially since the "fictional island", could be like a real island and you just gave a made up name to, or it could be a fantastical island that has no real connection. It could even be super like a real island, but you just gave a fake name to avoid diresctly offending someone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. I want to be clear here: I don't mean that the setting of every game is a defining feature. This vote has no bearing on the use of these categories on games with non-notable settings, and SnowFire is correct to call for the deletion of the category on games whose settings have not been treated as central features by reliable sources. However, I believe a blanket deletion is not suitable here; even a cursory Google search turns up a spate of reliable-source articles that treat game settings as definitive features: "Top 50 Video Game Worlds" from IGN; "10 of the Best Video Game Worlds" from Stuff; "10 Best Video Game Worlds We Wish We Could Be A Part Of" from Screenrant; "From Zelda to Grand Theft Auto: 10 of the best game worlds to get lost in" from The Guardian; "The Richest Scifi and Fantasy Worlds in Video Games" from Gizmodo; "The most spectacular game worlds you can explore on PC" from PC Gamer; "7 video game worlds we most want to visit" from CNN; "6 video game worlds we actually want to live in" from AV Club. There are a huge number of RS articles along these lines, treating a fictional and/or fantastical world as the central feature of the game. So, my vote is to keep the category, to reflect the RS coverage of those games that are defined by their worlds; using the category for every game with a fictional world is misuse, but using it for those games' worlds that have been specifically put front-and-center by RSes is an accurate reflection of source coverage, and should be kept. Phediuk (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, time and experience has shown that this is not a feasible long-term approach for category maintenance. Category maintenance is inherently decentralized: many editors across the project will add and remove categories. The only way to preserve sanity is with clear inclusion criteria, one of the core requirements of categories. For example, there isn't any wiggle room on "Alumni of College X": either the subject attended college X or they didn't, there's no need to ask whether the attendance was considered notable enough by biographers. To the extent the sample linked articles are reliable sources (some of these are weak listicles IMO - the GameRant article includes stuff like Rocket League and generally seems content-farmy), they can absolutely be covered in prose in the articles, but it doesn't mean that they're good sources for creating categories. A standard like "Video games set in fictional countries, but only if you can find a source talking about the country" would just lead to an endless edit war over whether the one paragraph in this one review that discusses the setting is "enough" coverage if the criteria was actually enforced. In practice, it wouldn't be enforced, the category would just continue to be a verification of the current scattershot practice of adding the category to articles at random. Anyway, what you describe is already sort of done: we already have Category:Video game locations and Category:Fictional countries and subcategories for categorizing countries/islands/etc. that are so notable that they deserve standalone articles, e.g. Mushroom Kingdom. But those categories already exist. (And I wouldn't object if someone wanted to take a hack at writing some child article of Setting (narrative) using some of the sources described above to make Video game setting or the like, but that'd be a prose article, not a category.) SnowFire (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as failing the purpose of categories, which is to link related entries together based on significant characteristics, not link what are in effect almost entirely unrelated entries based on some trivial fact (to take a random example, Bubble and Squeak (video game) clearly has no link whatsoever, beyond the trivial fact of being video games, with Gears of War 2; and yet, both are in the same fictional location category...). There are already far more pertinent and precise categories for these, ex. Category:Star Wars video games; and in those as well as other cases this only leads to category clutter. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)