Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Previous 8 to 21 days

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion
Shortcut

Today's discussions and up to 7 days old

edit

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions

8 to 14 days old

edit

December 25

edit

Category:Languages attested from 1964

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete and merge. Delete Category:Languages attested from 1964

Merging Category:Constructed languages introduced in 1964 to Category:1964 introductions and Category:Constructed languages introduced in the 1960s (non-admin closure) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Another single-article category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Brazilian people of Algerian-Jewish descent

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Yet another single-article category by ethnicity and nationality. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Brazilian people of Igbo descent

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Main article does not exist, and there is only one article in the category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in Scouts India

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#Category:Wikipedians in Scouts India


Category:Fantasy by franchise

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the same thing with the related sci-fi categories. The only two subcategories of this category do not commemorate to the title of this category; wouldn't it be a category for "Fictional things in fantasy worlds by franchise" rather instead? Anyway I cannot see this category being kept. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's kinda redundant when media franchises have a genre, a mangling of Category:Fantasy franchises. Contents are Category:Fictional universe of Harry Potter and Category:Middle-earth objects. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Science fiction by franchise

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I just removed some pages in this category and at the moment, this category has shrunk drastically, become redundant and conflicts with the similar category of Category:Science fiction franchises. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Remaining content is Category:Fictional technology by work, which is two levels below Category:Science fiction themes. @QuantumFoam66: Which subcategories did you remove, and why? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mongolian footballers by populated place

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Mongolian footballers. (non-admin closure) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one subcategory. No need to merge. Lost in Quebec (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Brazilian people of African descent by ethnicity

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary level of intermediate categorization between Category:Brazilian people of African descent and just two subcategories for African ethnic groups. Both of the two subcategories here are already in Category:Brazilian people of Nigerian descent, meaning they're already appropriately subcategorized within that parent and thus need neither this nor upmerging to the parent. (One of the two subcategories, Category:Brazilian people of Igbo descent, also only has one person in it, and thus may not even be warranted at all if it can't be made more populated than it is. However, I'm just raising it for review, rather than nominating it for deletion here and now, as I don't know whether getting more articles into it is actually possible or not — but I will say that the fact that it's linking an Igbo Brazilians article that doesn't even exist at all as its purported "main article" head isn't promising.) Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Social media influencers

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Thorough discussion; unlikely a WP:RELIST will help. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, not a clear distinction between the two categories. This is follow-up on this discussion which is still open. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Smasongarrison, Hydrangeans, and The Bushranger: pinging participants to the other discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose merge, and oppose deletion. Thanks for the ping. Note the first sentence in the Influencer article states, An influencer, also referred to as an online influencer and social media influencer, is a term traditionally associated with someone who is considered influential., while the first sentence in the Internet celebrity article states, An internet celebrity, also referred to as an internet personality, is an individual who has acquired or developed their fame and notability on the Internet. The point here is that not all influencers are celebrities, e.g., LinkedIn influencers, etc. That said, if you haven't already, please ping and invite the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet culture to be part of the discussion on this topic as they're the gurus... allowing enough time after the holidays for a response. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - while it is true that "not all influencers are celebrities" - or should be, at least - the fact is that even LinkedIn influencers are pretty much celebrities at this point, and in common useage the terms have become synonomous. Language evolves, for better or for worse, and this is a case where it has - and our categorization should evolve along with it. Also I'm amused that Firefox's spellchecker doesn't even recognize "influencer" as a word! - The Bushranger One ping only 20:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge (and, in case it is brought up, oppose deletion). As I explained in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_December_24#Category:American_social_media_influencers, these categories are not indistinguishable. "Influencer" carries a more specific connotation of trendsetting, especially in the realm of purchasing decisions, e.&nbps;g., vloggers plugging their Stanley drinking tumblers, Instagrammers recommending articles of clothing, YouTubers using sponsored props etc. That's not a connotation that readily connotes a documentarian like Kevin Perjurer of Defunctland, or an education podcaster like Michael Sugrue; I don't really see "influencer" as the point of overlap between such folks and Mr. Beast. Retaining Category:Social media influencers therefore remains useful. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Doubravice nad Svitavou

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

2100s and 2110s

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#2100s and 2110s

Category:Deaths from cerebrovascular disease

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: containerize. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: containerize, the articles directly in this category are usually about people who died by stroke, which is a far too common cause of death to categorize by. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support containerizing. It's definitely helpful for navigation. SMasonGarrison 16:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Leftover mosques categories

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. – Fayenatic London 17:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 12#Mosques 1200-1900; three single-member categories which were inadvertently excluded from the list. BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 06:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cestidae

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Cestida is a monotypic order, containing only the family Cestidae. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Deceased Everest summiters

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: split. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Selective merge. These are just summiters who are now deceased. For example, Rick Allen (mountaineer) died on K2. Gary Ball died on Dhaulagiri. SMasonGarrison 01:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Deaths on Scottish mountains

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: From looking at the deaths, these are all Mountaineering deaths. Sibling is Category:Mountaineering deaths in Nepal. This is boardline CDC SMasonGarrison 01:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


December 24

edit

Category:Reputed virgins

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is a veritable can of worms. It might include e.g. presumably the majority of Popes and other RC clergy, and a lot of people who died as children. Should it include people like Arthur, Prince of Wales and Edward Heath? PatGallacher (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see virginity as a notable biographical element. Who cares if they could not find any suitable lover? Dimadick (talk) 05:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hello Girls

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Category:Hello Girls


Medieval synagogues by year

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated single-article categories. Medieval mosques and churches are also not categorized by year. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Many dates in the Middle Ages are uncertain, including at least one of the items in this category (Synagogue of Santa María la Blanca, c. 1205). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Regencies of Bangka Belitung Islands

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Check out "The#Geographic usage" and "wikt:the#Usage notes", along with the naming of subcategories of Category:Bangka Belitung Islands. Wikihistorian (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American social media influencers

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Is this really a defining category that's distinct from American Internet celebrities? SMasonGarrison 04:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • YouTubers and TikTokers were exactly my point. We already have categories for them. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I may have written unclearly. My point was that YouTuber and social media influencer are separately notable. Michael Sugrue was a YouTuber, but to call him an "influencer" would to me seem to be misunderstanding the genre of his content (education in the history of philosophy). It's possible to be an Internet celebrity, or a noteworthy/notable person on the Internet, without being a social media influencer, making it useful to have influencers as a subcategory. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Hydrangeans's most recent comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Deaths from cardiovascular disease

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: containerize. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination. This cat was tagged for speedy deletion as G4. There was indeed a CfD back in 2021 where this was deleted by consensus. I declined the speedy because this was a lot of material to remove without a discussion, and IMHO I felt this call was just outside of the trust of the community for any one single trusted user. I have no interest in the outcome. BusterD (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on the previous: if the category is not kept then at least the subcategories should be moved to Category:Deaths by type of illness. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can get a clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Both defining, and relatively easy to locate available sources on it. Dimadick (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still appears to be consensus for a change, but no consensus on what the change should be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from the Crown of Castile

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:People from the Crown of Castile. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories. If merged, this category should be left as a redirect. If not merged, I think we need an extremely clear definition of how these categories are distinct. SMasonGarrison 17:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Castilians. If there are no further comments we should be all set for a reverse merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from the Crown of Aragon

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Category:People from the Crown of Aragon


Decades in history

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, no clear distinction versus their parent category. The decades as a whole are, or will become, part of history. The merge needs to happen manually because many articles are already in, e.g., Category:2000s decade overviews. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the category Category: 2020s in history has a few highly useful and highly specific roles ; a) it is for articles describing history in a broad narrative style , namely, 2020s in history, 2020s in military history, 2020s in Asian history, etc etc. and b) it is also for sub-categories pertaining to that decade's history, such as Category: 2020s in military history, Category:2020s in women's history, etc; so clearly those are not limited only to articles that are decade overviews.
And Category:2020s is clearly a broad umbrella category, with hugely wide scope, so it is not interchangeable with this category. Sm8900 (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on LaundryPizza's argument?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Non-governmental organizations

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: purge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Note that I'm proposing purging rather than deletion; however, there may be a case to be made that deletion might be preferable due to the scope of the problem.
The term does have a technical definition, but is routinely overused to the point of meaninglessness in the real world, encompassing nearly any organization that exists at all regardless of whether it fits the technical definition of an "NGO" or not — so previous discussions (e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 5#Category:Non-governmental organizations by country) have established a consensus that trying to categorize for the distinction between organizations that are "non-governmental" and organizations that are not "non-governmental" was not a productive use of wikipedians' time and energy. Accordingly, the category explicitly has a usage note on it saying "This is not a category for articles about individual organizations", as well as a {{Diffuse}} template on it, but unsurprisingly is quite populated by articles about individual organizations. Bearcat (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All individual organizations, since there's both a consensus and a usage note that the category isn't for individual organizations. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the category; thoughts on LaundryPizza's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People who have sacrificed their lives to save others

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. A rename proposal might find consensus, and as always editors are welcome to create a list regardless of the outcome of this discussion – see WP:NOTDUPE. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Vague and nondefining category SMasonGarrison 16:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find this preposterous. How is this vague? Should it be "People who have knowingly sacrificed their lives to save others"? "People who have knowingly died when directly acting to save others"? Blockhaj (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 09:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Listify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Engineers from Jharkhand

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lost in Quebec: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Alvarado wrestling family

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#Category:Alvarado wrestling family

Category:Arab supporters of Israel

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#Category:Arab supporters of Israel

Category:Engineers from Himachal Pradesh

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's question?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lost in Quebec: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Substituted amphetamines

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. When taking the CFDS discussion into account, there has already been thorough discussion and WP:RELISTing is unlikely to break the logjam. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per opposed WP:CFDS request:
Extended content
–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Neapolitan families

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#Category:Neapolitan families

Category:Lists of religious buildings and structures in East Timor

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: And other parents. Part of a mass cleanup after the recent rename of East Timor's article to Timor-Leste. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both the nominated and nominee categories are likely to be speedy-renamed now. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Politicians arrested in Turkey

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Category:Politicians arrested in Turkey

Category:Politicians arrested in the Maldives

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Category:Politicians arrested in the Maldives

Category:Aim for the Top! images

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename * Pppery * it has begun... 16:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The official English name of "Aim for the Top!" (トップをねらえ!) is Gunbuster. Although Diebuster has its own name, in releases in English-speaking markets, it often has Gunbuster 2 (or "GunBuster 2") as another name used in conjunction with Diebuster. Furthermore, Gaina is working on Gunbuster 3. In addition, I created a category on Wikimedia Commons, commons:Category:Gunbuster, for that reason. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I wanted to add that a similar example of having the original name is the Neon Genesis Evangelion category, encompassing Neon Genesis Evangelion, Rebuild of Evangelion, and spin-offs. I figured that by following Evangelion's example, Gunbuster, as the franchise is known by its original name, could be more easily identified and more streamlined across the English-language Wikipedia. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


December 23

edit

Category:Shooting civilians following mistaken identification

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Category:Shooting civilians following mistaken identification

Category:Ambassadors of Algeria to Libya

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. As JPL pointed on out my talk page, the only person (Mohamed Larbi Zitout) in this category isn't an ambassador. They're a regular diplomat/civil servant. I've added them to Algerian expatriates in Libya, so there's no need to merge SMasonGarrison 22:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Association football families needing disambiguation

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename as nominated. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Several other subcategories of Category:Association football families, such as Category:Ball family (association football), use the full (and in this case, British) name of the sport to disambiguate. Typically, the disambiguator for any family category is a noun describing the occupation generally, not a grouping of practitioners like "footballers." Mike Selinker (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • A couple more to add to this nomination:
If this goes through, of course. Mike Selinker (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Brown family (bankers of Baltimore)

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Brown family (banking). Unopposed. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't see any other categories of families named Brown in banking, and it should use the occupation name like Category:Stern family (banking). Mike Selinker (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral as category creator. When trying to come up with the title, I associated the family first with the city, but there were other Browns in Baltimiore so I added the bankers part. If banking alone is recognisable and precise enough then it should be fine. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Alltuni family

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only an eponymous page and one family member, which isn't helpful for navigation. Delete for now. SMasonGarrison 19:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: Is that a keep !vote? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Category-Class United States articles of NA-importance

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All 171,000 pages (not articles) in this category all already a member of Category:Category-Class United States articles or Category:Category-Class United States pages on the one hand, and Category:NA-importance United States articles or Category:NA-importance United States pages on the other hand. Considering that all category-class pages are NA-importance by definition anyway, this means that we have three ways of expressing the same thing here, making this a superfluous combined category. Fram (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wives of Louis XII

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Thorough discussion; unlikely a WP:RELIST will help. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Very small category with no prospect of expansion in which all articles are already categorised within Category:Queens consort of France. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Three wives is a perfectly reasonable size for this type of category. Dimadick (talk) 10:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional gnomes

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Gnomes in popular culture. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Are there non-fictional gnomes? Fram (talk) 08:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While I'm not sure we have the right names for the categories, separate categorization strikes me as more helpful than not. Thinking about navigating categories as a reader, I would find it more confusing than clarifying if I find articles about medieval folklore like the Dutch legends about Kabouter next to pop cultural creations like cereal mascots Snap, Crackle, and Pop. As for whether there's a distinction, while the borders can be fuzzy and are socially constructed, as with lots of things in humanities about stories of non-reality like mythology, pop mascots, literature, etc., it's not original to us as Wikipedians to note a distinction that society has made. (See for instance A Companion to Folklore (Blackwell Publishing, 2012) for discussion of both the sometimes-association and sometimes-differentiation in society between folklore and forms of fiction like literature). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this reminds me of the difference in fairytales between the oral tradition and ones that originated with named authors. For the authored ones, some are written for children, some to express feminism, some as adult horror stories etc etc etc. --Northernhenge (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional proposal: create Category:Legendary gnomes as also a subcategory of Category:Legendary creatures. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the comments by Marcocapelle and Hydrangeans?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fantasy video game characters by franchise

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: dual merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The following category feels incredibly out-of-place given the fact that there currently no other categories for "Fantasy __ characters by franchise" other than this one, and the "Fantasy video game characters" itself only has only other category; making this category ultimately unhelpful. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Also to Category:Video game characters by franchise. An unnecessary intersection by genre and medium. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


December 22

edit

Category:Same-sex marriage in Africa by country

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Based in this CfD.--MikutoH talk! 21:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:2,6-Dihydroxybiphenyls

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category only contains one page, and cannot be easily expanded: only two pages are in both Category:Biphenyls and Category:Resorcinols, only one of which is actually a 2,6-dihydroxybiphenyl. Preimage (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Fictional insectivores

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't have a category for insectivores, so it's odd to keep a category for fictional insectivores. Furthermore, while hedgehogs do eat insects, they are in fact omnivores so their presence in the category is questionable. All entries and subcategories are already categorized as Category:Fictional mammals. Pichpich (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pharmacy schools in Virginia

edit
Nominator's rationale: Category only contains 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Christians

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 30#Ancient Christians


Category:Rebellions against the Ottoman Empire

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: They should be merged. They have same meaning. MRTFR55 (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Slavery in Italy

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 30#Category:Slavery in Italy

Category:Boycotts of apartheid South Africa

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 30#Category:Boycotts of apartheid South Africa

Category:Rape in video games

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. A deletion proposal might gain consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Move to a defining name from a non-defining name. I have nominated this category for renaming rather than trying to speedy it because many of the games in it have rape as a non-defining aspect of the story. There seem to be enough to justify a category of games where it is defining to the game, but it will have to be manually purged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's and Jontesta's comments?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: see above
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 09:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Trees of the Eastern United States

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge Category:Trees of the Eastern United States, Category:Trees of the West Coast of the United States and Category:Trees of the Plains-Midwest (United States) to Category:Trees of Northern America. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As with previous discussions on tree categories this will eliminate an inconsistently used category. It will reduce the amount of WP:OVERCAT and be similar to two previous mergers of all the national categories for tree to the umbrella Category:Trees of Europe in 2015 and the North American state and provincial categories in 2023. I suspect that all the species are already categorized in Trees of Northern America, but just in case I'm moving for a merge rather than a delete. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on The Bushranger's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See above
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 09:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Zhejiang Daily Newspaper Group

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Zhejiang Daily Press Group with a {{trout}} to TinaLees-Jones for moving this out-of-process. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The official name TinaLees-Jones (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:West Slavic nobility

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete both. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category that's just a container category SMasonGarrison 02:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Henry Ford Community College alumni

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The article Henry Ford Community College has been renamed to Henry Ford College GoingBatty (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Premierships in Canada

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 30#Category:Premierships in Canada


December 21

edit

Category:Military aircraft of World War I

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 08:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Header note on the category reads "Most articles about aircraft types that were used in World War I are in one of the 1910–1919 (first flight) categories listed below." - thereby acknoloedging that this is incomplete and is apparently intended to be so. Furthermore, this is one of the "performers by performance" type categories that are discouraged - we generally try not to categorise in this manner, because it can lead to very lengthy category sections for what are, sometimes questionably, defining characteristics (to give an example, is the Grumman F-9 Cougar, for instance, defined by the fact TF-9Js operated briefly in Vietnam?).
If kept, this should be thoroughly expanded to include all of the relevant types within it. The Bushranger One ping only 23:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American Profanity

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per above, creator seems confused about what categories are for. Remsense ‥ 论 19:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:197 Countries World

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Creator seems confused about the purpose of categories, apparent idea totally redundant. Remsense ‥ 论 18:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to Category:Countries, given the category description of These are the Countries of the World. Belbury (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Electric power in Syria

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep * Pppery * it has begun... 20:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Main article is Electricity in Syria Chidgk1 (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

ESC/JESC entrant categories

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Traumnovelle (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 03:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I don't see how these are different from Category:Olympic competitors by country and Category:Olympic competitors by year cause ESC and JESC are that important and for most artists their participation in the contest(s) is the peak of their career. (And it is their "defining characteristic" cause it is the only thing we remember them for.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment. The page that you are basing this proposal on (WP:PERFCAT) actually says at the very top: "One of the central goals of the categorization system is to categorize articles by their defining characteristics. Defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to."
    And I think it's obvious that most of these artists are remembered by their participation in a Eurovision song contest and that "reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to" these artists as Eurovision entrants for their countries.
    I think this deletion proposal is a good example of following rules blindly. We have some random rule written by a random person, and you are voting "delete" without even thinking a little bit. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this. I'm also new around here in terms of voting for things, how do I do that? 3SiameseCats (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @3SiameseCats: Read WP:Articles for deletion#How to contribute. First write '''Keep''' or '''Delete''' (in bold) and then explain why you are voting like this.
    P.S. I used to think that a comment / "written opinion" is more important than an actual "vote" cause WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy and that simple "votes" without an explanation don't even count, but the people above are just voting and don't contribute to the actual discussion... So maybe '''Keep''' or '''Delete''' "per smth. or somebody's comment" is enough. Or maybe it is even enough to just copy-paste someone else's comment as done by the people who voted "Delete per nom". :-) But I think it is still preferable to explain your vote. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Terrorist incidents in Germany in 2022

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. No prejudice against an immediate wider nomination (User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/massXFD can help with that). Unknown Temptation and/or Marcocapelle, pinging in case either of you wish to pursue this. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. There is only one article in the category and it can be merged into the wider parent categories. Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Portal-Class Comics articles of NA-importance

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete both. Pppery, to implement deletion, you just delete the category and the module uses some ifexist magic to automatically unpopulate the categories :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All these pages are already in the categories "Portal-Class Comics articles" and "NA-importance Comics articles", ideally they should only be in "Portal-Class Comics articles", which should be a member of "NA-importance Comics articles", and this redundant category can simply be deleted. Fram (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably some technical solution for this needs to be found, but when it is implemented, it can also be applied to other types of pages which are always NA, i.e. every page in all subcategories of Category:NA-importance Comics articles except the actual articles cats (stub, start, C, GA, ...) should be removed from "... articles of NA-importance" and "NA-importance comics articles". As an example, Talk:10th Muse is now in three cats, it should only remain in "Redirect-Class Comics articles", and that cat should get "NA-importance comics articles". Simplify by removing redundancy. But I guess this belong at the Village pump, as this seems to happen with some other projects as well, and is presumably too much for the scope of CfD? Fram (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: now at WP:VPPR#Cleaning up NA-class categories. Fram (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Template-Class Guyana articles of NA-importance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This intersection is really not helpful in almost all cases. Gonnym (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone have any idea how to implement a delete closure here? The consensus seems clear, but I don't. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Members of the Australian House of Representatives by term

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 28#Members of the Australian House of Representatives by term


December 20

edit

Category:Illinois Fighting Illini ice hockey venues

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT (1 article). User:Namiba 23:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same person, different day! Seek and destroy is what drives this person. Spatms (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Defunct indoor ice hockey venues in Kansas

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT as it contains only 2 articles. Both articles are already in other relevant subcategories. The merge target is also currently up for renaming. User:Namiba 23:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Website logos. There's no point in isolating this logo in its own subcategory. Category:Website logos is not that big and can accommodate an extra item. Pichpich (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United States federal preemption law

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename * Pppery * it has begun... 20:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Should not be controversial. "Law" categories refers to statutes and regulations and other kinds of written enactions. "Case law" categories refer to court decisions. This is a category for case law. lethargilistic (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the Sherman Antitrust Act redirect is to a case law section of that article, so I think it's fine as an exception. Kind of random, but whatever. lethargilistic (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know about the speedy options until just now. I should have listed this there under WP:C2C. lethargilistic (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ranged weapon stubs

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ranged weapon has been deleted, thus a merge is required as this category in its current state is not appropriate. This also implies that Template:Ranged-weapon-stub be deleted as well for similar reasons. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Melee weapon stubs

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With melee weapon now deleted/a redirect/etc. this category is no longer relevant or necessary. It is only generally used in a gaming sense anyway and is inappropriate for real life weapons. This also would include the deletion of Template:Melee-weapon-stub because it would be pointless without the associated category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Dual screen phone

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 20:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All of the phones present, as of now, in this category are smartphones. Some are foldables, some are not. Almost all, or at least big majority of clamshell dumb phones have 2 screens. As it is now, all of those should also be in this category, but that is not necessary as the clamshell category covers them. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: see above
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 17:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Agapanthiinae-stub

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unused and malformed stub template. This was newly created within the past few days, but (a) hasn't been applied to any pages at all, (b) tried to stub-sort its theoretical entries into a redlinked category that doesn't exist to have pages in it but can't be created until the template's on 60 pages, and (c) even the class of thing it's purportedly for is a redlink in the template text, meaning I have absolutely no way to sort out what to do with it (such as what pages to add it to, or what higher-level category to have it upfile any such entries into).
Based on playing around with the word's spelling in the search bar, the best theory I can come up with is that this was a misspelling of Agapanthiini -- but if that's what they meant, then this is just redundant because {{Agapanthiini-stub}} already exists for that, and if they meant something else I have no other way to figure out what was intended.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can figure out that it actually has any potential use, but it can't be kept if it's both broken and unused. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 17:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the attempt to create the stub was initiated by the researcher who recently proposed raising the tribe to subfamily rank in a self-published work. No other researchers have adopted this classification, so this is a clear WP:COI violation, as are most of this same editor's other edits, mostly citing his own numerous self-published works. Self-published works are not generally considered reliable sources, and it's even worse when the editor trying to cite them is the author of those works. The number of WP:COI violations by this editor should be a real concern. Dyanega (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:White American football cornerbacks

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT, no reason to split people off based on whether they are White American or not, as skin colour doesn't have any impact on whether or not they are a cornerback. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American films set in New York City

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge * Pppery * it has begun... 20:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT. While categories such as Category:British films set in New York City and Category:French films set in New York City are valid, it doesn't make sense for this particular category to exist, considering that it's safe to say that the vast majority of films set in New York City are American. snapsnap (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a better name for Category:Foreign films set in the United States could be Category:Non-American films set in the United States, but yes, it's a different issue. The primary issue here is that categories such as Category:American films set in New York City (or Category:American films set in the United States, for that matter) are pointless. snapsnap (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With a parent category like Category:Films set in the United States by country of production, I don't think categories like Category:American films set in New York City or Category:American films set in the United States would be pointless. It seems like an U. S.-centric point of view to assume that a movie set in the United States would, with no other information, by be default be an American movie. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "U.S.-centric point of view", it's common sense. American films set in New York City (or any other American city) aren't nearly as uncommon as non-American films set in NYC or the US, hence why I don't see categories like Category:American films set in New York City, Category:American films set in the United States and the proposed Category:Films set in the United States by country of production as anything other than overcategorization and puffery. snapsnap (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With over 450 articles in what is currently Category:Foreign films set in the United States, I'm struggling to see why organizing films further by country of productive would be overcategorization; the category seems a little under-organized right now. How it would be puffery is beyond me. Lots of categories are containerized and subcategorized by nation/nationality. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. The focus of this particular discussion is Category:American films set in New York City, not Category:Foreign films set in the United States. This isn't merely about subcategorization by country. The issue here, specifically, is how Category:American films set in New York City is pointless and completely unnecessary, considering that it's safe to assume that the vast majority of films set in New York City are American. Bottom line: subcategorizing American films by American city is nothing but overcategorization. snapsnap (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nominated. Films being set in the country within which they are produced is not defining. I particularly agree with Marcocapelle's point about how French films set in Paris is not France-centric. I appreciate fighting US-centrism, but this is not an instance of it. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:NBA championship–winning players from outside the United States

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge to parent category. This is pretty much a recreation of what was merged in this previous Cfd. I don't see how this is different except that the previously deleted categories have been made into one big one - no need to make a distinction between where a championship-winning player was born for a category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Noon Universe novels

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altenmann (talk • contribs) 06:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "novels" creates unnecessary restriction and is not involved in categorization. I want to add some times (films, etc) but I dont want to create a supercategory for a rather narrow category. --Altenmann >talk 08:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:WikiProject on open proxies

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since the WikiProject has been renamed, it makes sense to rename the category too. Nobody (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Languages attested

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated single-article categories, unhelpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Ancient Roman Catholic saints

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, we do not categorize pre-Schism saints by denomination. All articles are already in Category:3rd-century Christian saints etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agreed, even if canonisation may have taken place long post-Schism. It is the same reason why I chose Category:Christian saints from Kievan Rus' (9th to 13th century), but we agreed to go for Category:Eastern Orthodox saints from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (16th to 18th century). Still not sure how this going to pan out in the end, but our recent changes do address some of the worst anachronisms. NLeeuw (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia oversighters

edit
Nominator's rationale: This is redundant to Special:Users, which is automatically maintained and is up to date at all times. The users involved were not asked nor did they consent to being placed in this category, and some of the pages that have been included do not fit into the category (e.g., User:Deskana/Userboxes/oversight since). Deskana has not been an oversighter for many years, and their name should not be included in this category, even peripherally. The category is not maintained, and it is poor use of editor time to maintain a redundant category. Risker (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: This category was created before the Single User Login (SUL) conversion, and may have made sense at the time, but has now been supplanted by Special:Users. Risker (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Combined the 2 nominations. Courtesy ping to Risker. - jc37 20:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete per nom. It contains editors who are not oversighters (e.g. Deskana) and doesn't contain some editors who are (e.g. me). Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category is filled by at least top icons and likely also user boxes. Errors of incorrect inclusion should be corrected instead of used as examples IMO.... Izno (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If these are deleted per redundancy with Special:Users, I think that there should be a follow-up nom (or add to this one) of most of the cats in Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia user access level, except maybe Stewards and the global ones, since they are off-wiki. - jc37 20:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Won't disagree with you, Jc37. I just focused on the two that were most obviously useless. Should consensus be that they are deleted, then it clears the way for similar actions relating to other parallel categories. Risker (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. And these go against a fundamental long-standing convention of user categories at CFD: "We should never (even unintentionally) mis-categorize Wikipedians". - jc37 20:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there is a danger of overreacting here. The logical outcome of that absolutist and fundamentalist approach would be to remove user categories from all user boxes and topicons, in case they become out of date. I prefer Izno's approach, that such user templates should be removed when no longer appropriate. If admins are still given {{administrator}} when appointed,[7] then updating categorisation in this way could be standard practice for some other user access levels. – Fayenatic London 11:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fayenatic london, why do we want categories that are knowingly and deliberately incomplete? It is completely inappropriate to add topicons, userboxes, or categories to anyone's userpage. (It's okay to remove the topicons and categories when they no longer apply, but userboxes? That's getting pretty much into the weeds there.) But right now, these are unmaintained categories that have been supplanted by the up-to-date and correct Special:Users and are essentially useless. Nobody who's trying to find a checkuser or oversighter should be checking the category; they need to be directed to the places where there's a proper, current list of holders of those permissions. Risker (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    why do we want categories that are knowingly and deliberately incomplete We give wide latitude to users to decide how they wish to appear in categories. That extends even to user groups, and largely always has. We have complementary categories for every user right, and I'm really struggling to see what the harm is in an incomplete list. (And have already ceded that these should be removed from the pages where they are no longer appropriate.)
    This seems to be a WP:CLN type problem to me. Different people have different ways of navigating, and we have different ways of organizing information with each type. And on top of that, different scripts which add supplementary information in different locations. The categories are helpful in this anyway because they already expose the more complete list, and give people who are familiar with categories a place to go when they're looking at a specific user page. Or coming from the other direction, down from "Wikipedia user groups", from which they may have navigated elsewise. Izno (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Risker: why do we want mouldy fish for Christmas? I expressed no opinion on the two nominated categories. I'm just concerned about the direction of travel of the "absolutely" and "fundamental" comments by Jc37, which inter alia would terminate the use of the usercategory parameter in user boxes, because they miscategorise Wikipedians (e.g inactive users as participants). Your last half-sentence is more sensible, so I have acted on it and added a link with instructions at Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia user access level. As for Cyberpower678's edit to my user page after RfA, I took no exception to it, and am surprised that you find it completely inappropriate. I assumed that it was standard practice, and that the topicon was populating Wikipedia administrators, but it appears that I was mistaken on both those counts; the category for administrators is incomplete with 662, and there are only 802 direct transclusions of the topicon,[8] compared to well over 800 admins per Special:Users. – Fayenatic London 17:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a difference here. "This user likes baseball" is reliant only on the user's preference. "This user is checkuser" can change without the user being involved (due to removal due to inactivity or whatever). So in the first case, if they go inactive, the userbox is still applicable. In the second, it's not.
    And yes: "We should not miscategorize Wikipedians" has long been foundation to take into consideration at CfD. (Similar to, we should never miscategorize articles about people.) We should never merge Wikipedians into an inapplicable category, for example, merely to make the name "better" per a cfd discussion. So in those cases, we delete the cat and allow for Wikipedians to decide for themselves if they should belong to a category of a new name. We should not be deciding for them.
    Anyway, in this case, it's simple: categories are about navigation. Having these is a disservice to those looking for a CU or OS editor. Add a link (with an explanation) to Special:Users, at the top of the parent cat, and call it good. - jc37 21:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments. Izno (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See, here's my issue. I don't want to have any categories. I do, however, like having the topicons. Unfortunately, the code for these categories seems to be completely dependent on the topicons. If the two were divorced, I'd be more or less happy. I just don't want to be forced into a category (and have categories cluttering my userpage) just because I have a topicon. The two should not be interdependent. Once upon a time, this sort of made sense. It stopped making sense by the time SUL was complete and the Special:Users page became easily sortable for all types of user groups. If people want to be in the category, they should be free to put themselves in the category; however, it's not reasonable to force people into the category because they have appropriate topicons. Risker (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the idea of having these categories are a leftover relic of times gone by. And, as you note, wiki software has removed the need for them. - jc37 20:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    |nocat= is routinely provided for user boxes, I see no reason it can't be provided by top icons as well. Izno (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These templates (and {{top icon}}) have had it for more than a decade. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The presence of a category here is inherently misleading. And besides that there's little reason besides curiosity to browse the list of checkusers or oversighters - if you want the attention of a checkuser use {{Checkuser needed}}, if you want something oversighted follow one of the approved processes at Wikipedia:Oversight. In neither case is it helpful to broadcast. Pppery (alt) (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Izno; keep and fix any errant uses of the categories. The potential for misuse of a category is not a reason for deletion except in extreme cases (e.g. when it is most frequently used incorrectly), and this is not one of them. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monuments and memorials to Queen Elizabeth II

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CATNAME, which clearly states that standard naming conventions used for articles also apply to categories. As a result, this category needs to be made consistent with dozens of other categories on Elizabeth II, including Category:Elizabeth II, Category:Coronation of Elizabeth II, Category:Cultural depictions of Elizabeth II, etc. The guidelines and the consensus discourage the use of prefixes "King", "Queen", etc. before a sovereign's regnal name (per WP:SOVEREIGN and various discussions from June 2018, May 2019 (1), May 2019 (2), etc.). Keivan.fTalk 03:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Belarusian saints

edit
Nominator's rationale: Downmerge redundant layer after recent renaming and merger. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 9#Category:Eastern Orthodox saints from Belarus. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual#Other. Pinging @HouseBlaster: here we go. NLeeuw (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, NL! Support per nom. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Military families by nationality

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 30#Military families by nationality

Category:Transport in Balutola

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry category for one thing in a small village, with the added bonus that the thing isn't even in that village, it's in a larger place near the village. But we categorize things for the places that they're in, not the places that the places they're in are near, so this isn't warranted at all. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


December 19

edit

Category:¡Uno! ¡Dos! ¡Tré!

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 29#Category:¡Uno! ¡Dos! ¡Tré!

Category:Defunct indoor ice hockey venues in the United States

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Back in March, we merged a big batch of indoor ice hockey venues categories but I forgot to tag their defunct siblings. To restate, "The overwhelming number of venues defined by being a venue for ice hockey are indoors so this distinction is unnecessary. While outdoor stadiums are occasionally used as venues, they are not defined by hosting an occasional ice hockey event." User:Namiba 22:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Military saints

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 20:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Although it does have a main article called military saints, that, too, has its own problems. If this was really only about soldiers in the Roman Army during the persecution of Christians, especially the Diocletianic Persecution of AD 303–313., as the cat desc claims, plenty of people do not belong in this category. Alternatively, it could be renamed to something more specific or between brackets, but that would likely also depend on the main article being cleaned up. A second alternative might be WP:LISTIFY to Military saint#List, and demand WP:RS for every entry on that list per WP:LISTCRIT. But my overall preference is just to delete this as an arbitrarycat, and request a serious cleanup of military saint. Thoughts? NLeeuw (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Russian military personnel of the war in Donbas

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 30#Category:Russian military personnel of the war in Donbas

Song contest performer categories

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. WP:TRAINWRECK; individual (or small, closely-related groups of) categories can be speedily renominated. But relisting is not going to untangle this, and there is no current consensus for any particular action. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Violation of WP:PERFCAT, specifically "Performers by production or performance venue". Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now nominated the sub-categories for CfD in a separate nomination: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 21#ESC/JESC entrant categories. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TSventon: That is a good point; I do think some of the contests listed above would not pass this criteria, but others would. With that in mind I am withdrawing the CfD nomination for these categories in particular, and will renominate separately if I believe a WP:OCAWARD does apply. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft oppose I do not think WP:PERFCAT applies. "Performers by production" is Avoid categorizing performers by an appearance at an event or other performance venue. These are competitions, however, not just performances. That is to say, if some singer other than a contestant performed at Eurovision 1992, e.g. during a break or opening ceremony, that is WP:NONDEF. But the contestants themselves are central to the competition. "Performers by venue" is like Comedians who once upon a time told a joke in the Three Rivers Stadium, while "Performers by appearance" is Comedians who once upon a time told a joke during half-time. It's WP:NONDEF to link a performer to a location, or to a brief appearance during an event in which they played no central role. But none of the nominated categories even mention the venue by name (because it is irrelevant), so I do not understand the rationale. NLeeuw (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw: I understand where you're coming from on this, however I think that ESC, JESC, and all the other contests listed above, are all essentially TV productions. From the policy I linked to, "[t]his also includes categorization by performance [...] in any specific radio, television, film, or theatrical production" I believe applies to these categories. I included the full title of the relevant section for total clarity, however just to reiterate I believe these categories fall under the "production" element of this sub-section, and that the "venue" element doesn't apply here. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I do not agree (yet), but I can see where you are taking that argument. However, the "venue" part in your rationale still does not appear to apply in this case (Edit: Ah, we appear to agree on that). NLeeuw (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you say that a sports competition, like a baseball match, automatically becomes a "production" if it is televised? The sportspeople are "performing", in a way, to entertain the audience. The people watching at home may easily outnumber those in the stadium, depending on how high-level the match is, so the televised "version" of the match might have a much larger overall social impact than for the attendees observing it with their own senses. If it does count as a "production", I'm concerned that this might establish a far-reaching, unintended precedent. NLeeuw (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair point, however it is not simply because these contests are televised that I believe they are television productions. They only exist because they are organised by national broadcasters. In the specific example of the Eurovision Song Contest, the main organiser is the European Broadcasting Union, a union of public-service broadcasters across Europe, Africa and Asia, and only EBU member broadcasters can participate; as an artist you can't simply "enter" the contest, you have to be chosen by a country's broadcaster as its entrant. The same can be said for Junior Eurovision and Young Musicians, which are also EBU events, while the other contests listed here are also organised by broadcasters or broadcasting unions. This is why I believe for these contests and these categories in particular there is an WP:PERFCAT violation. Of course I understand the hesitancy when it comes to an unintended precedent to this decision, so I'd also like to understand where you think this might lead to. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it's obvious, isn't it? We are facing deletion of hundreds of categories relating to participants or winners of any kinds of competitions that were ever televised or put on radio or livestreamed on the Internet or otherwise broadcast, even if the competition could be held and observed by an audience without being broadcast at all (such as that baseball match). Similarly, Eurovision could be held as a competition without being broadcast (just as the earliest Olympics were not); it just emerged in a time when television was emerging as a broadcasting medium. So I'm not sure how WP:DEFINING the "production" part of it really is, and whether it should take precedence over the competition part for categorisation purposes. That said, I can follow a lot of your arguments, and I'm actually getting kind of sad that at some point we'll have to choose between your arguments and mine. ;) NLeeuw (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I don't see how this is any different than people participating in a game show. Whether on screen or on stage, it's entertainment that is a performance event. Even if the "contestants/participants" categories are kept, the 2 conductors and composers cats are clearly examples of performers by performance. - jc37 20:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the conductors and composers cats are evidently ready for deletion. The others I am not yet persuaded by. NLeeuw (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Eurovision Song Contest entrants (and all subcategories) and Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest entrants (and all subcategories). These are defining events in their careers for sure.
    As for the other "contestants" categories, I'm not sure. Some, like Melodifestivalen, can actually "define destinies". --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm guessing some of you probably are Americans, and you don't understand how important Eurovision is. Every entrant gets their part of the fame, you don't have to win to become famous. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A person's "fame" has nothing to do with whether an article is categorized or not. - jc37 01:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moscow Connection: Can you please explain why you believe these categories are an exception to WP:PERFCAT? Notability is not the main crux for my request for delete, it is what I believe to be an overcategorisation issue. I am not suggesting removing the artists' articles from Wikipedia, or questioning their notability or "fame"; I'm just talking about whether we need these categories, given that we have guidelines that explicitly state [a]void categorizing performers by an appearance at an event, which ESC, JESC and the other contests listed would fall under. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I think one's participation in the contests is a defining characteristic. The peak of most people's careers. (That's especially true for kids, who take part in the JESC, and then they are notable only in their own countries, their "international career" is over.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally use these categories to find singer articles cause their participation in the European song contests is the only thing I remember about most people. To me, most ESC and JESC contestants are like one-hit wonders, they are known only for being in the JESC/ESC. . --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment. The page that you are basing this proposal on (WP:PERFCAT) actually says at the very top: "One of the central goals of the categorization system is to categorize articles by their defining characteristics. Defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to."
    And I think it's obvious that most of these artists are remembered by their participation in a Eurovision song contest and that "reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to" these artists as Eurovision entrants for their countries.
    I think this deletion proposal is a good example of following rules blindly. We have some random rule written by a random person, and you are voting "delete" without even thinking a little bit. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I fail to see how these are different from Category:Olympic competitors by country and Category:Olympic competitors by year cause ESC and JESC are that important and for most artists their participation in the contest(s) is the peak of their career. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American film industry accountants

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:American accountants and Category:American film people. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Narrow underpopulated category SMasonGarrison 13:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Online poker players

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Poker players. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recently created, orphan category, that does not need to be split from potential parent category. UtherSRG (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Writing systems

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge Without prejudice against a broader nomination * Pppery * it has begun... 20:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated single-article categories, unhelpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While we're at it, I don't think it makes sense to keep Category:Writing systems introduced in the 1030s and similar categories until the 18th-century. Pichpich (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and follow-up by deleting the whole Category:Writing systems by date of introduction tree as WP:NONDEF. I'm taking the observations of nom and Pichpich to their logical conclusion, namely that these categories do no aid navigation at all, and the time of introduction is just very non-defining for writing systems, if we are able to date them at all. The whole challenge of any sort of historical research is that most sources ever created in the past have been destroyed throughout the centuries. And so we'll never have anything like complete evidence where something like a writing system came from and when it was first used and by whom and why and how and whether that was really unique, or just kinda like what already existed but under another name, in another place or slightly but not radically modified. These are complicated questions to answer with the often scanty evidence available to us, and those questions should be discussed in full-blown, stand-alone articles. Categories like this cannot provide references to sources for a claim that, say, Aristarchian symbols were really introduced in the 2nd century BCE. I think it would take only 10 minutes to find at least 5 papers in journals arguing some other date. This stuff just isn't well-categorisable. Let's get rid of it all. NLeeuw (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say, let's leave deletion for a next broader nomination. By the way I can imagine that we can pinpoint the introduction of newer writing systems more precisely (e.g. since the 16th century). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Possibly fictional people from Europe

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Category:Possibly fictional people from Europe

Category:Rhythm and blues music awards

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename * Pppery * it has begun... 20:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Perhaps this is speediable due to the naming of similar categories under Category:Rhythm and blues, but I'm taking the conservative route and taking this to CfD to discuss renaming the category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad I took to full discussion then. As opposed to the ambiguity of pop and rock, rhythm and blues is still music without "music" as a suffix. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 09:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional monasteries

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Fictional religious places and Category:Monasteries in fiction and Category:Fictional buildings and structures. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is only one proper article in here. It is unlikely to be flooded with enough articles to justify a category (and flooding it with redirects would be bad form and duplicate the organization at Category:Monasteries_in_fiction). Jontesta (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Discworld peoples

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Discworld. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is only one article in this category, and it's questionably notable. There is a low chance of this being flooded with enough articles to justify the need for it (and flooding it with redirects would be bad form). Jontesta (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

15 to 21 days old

edit

December 18

edit

Category:17th-century Armenian people by occupation

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This is a redundant category layer. SMasonGarrison 23:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Dune (franchise) families

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are no actual articles for this category, and a low chance that a flood of real articles could ever be made. It's also bad form to flood this category with redirects, which are already included at Category:Dune (franchise) element redirects to lists. Jontesta (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Biography articles without living parameter

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 26#Category:Biography articles without living parameter

Category:17th-century Lithuanian philosophers

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 26#Category:17th-century Lithuanian philosophers

Category:Birdwatching sites in Poland

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Birds of Poland. (non-admin closure) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redudant category layer SMasonGarrison 20:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Analog Drum Machine

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 26#Category:Analog Drum Machine

Category:Coats of arms of families of Poland

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) SMasonGarrison 20:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories SMasonGarrison 19:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I figured out how these are different. This category was just underpopulated. SMasonGarrison 20:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Films with screenplays by

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per past consensus, a filmmaker has to have a biographical article about them before getting a category to batch their films under. None of these categories have corresponding articles and all consist of only one or two films. An effort was make to broaden the categories by searching for other works by these filmmakers, and none were found. Vegantics (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Suicides by occupation

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep * Pppery * it has begun... 19:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Everything in this category and its subcategories are trivial intersections. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, these are not trivial intersections. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which aren’t? How are they any different from model or sportspeople suicides? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose this intersection would only ever be trivial if there couldn't possibly be a correlation between the two separate categories or any interest in a list of people who are part of the two categories. Of course this isn't the case here. Here are just three of thousands of sources that deal with the correlation between occupation and suicides: [9], [10], [11]. PetScan isn't by a long shot user-friendly and widespread enough that category overlaps should be abolished. Rkieferbaum (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are trivial intersections for our purposes. Is there any individual category you think to be defining? I would have nominated them individually but they all appear to be non defining. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This category is helpful for navigation. SMasonGarrison 19:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison Navigation between categories that are non-defining. Which categories here do you think are defining? If there’s an argument that some are I can just nominate the others. But everything here the tie between these things seems wholly tangential. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For further explanation, categories that go along the lines of “people murdered for [their occupation]” are defining and not trivial - but that is not what is here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Until those child categories don't exist, I see no reason to delete this category. I had nominated several categories to discuss on their merits. I think your nomination here is premature. SMasonGarrison 20:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Every single category in the category seems just as non-defining as the others on their merits. Even if nothing comes out of it is productive to have a conversation about what is here and the general principle underlying them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't nominate those categories, you only nominated the container category. SMasonGarrison 21:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison I was going to tag the subcategories later since that would take a bit.
I want consistency more than anything - my issue is that the individual categories within this have been repeatedly deleted and recreated due to CfD discussions, all included within it are dubiously defining. I do not care if this category exists or not, but within it I want consistency. This category existing encourages trivial cross categorizations - but are they trivial?
If there is some place we can discuss whether murder or suicide as an intersection with career is a valid cross categorizations, I can close this and we can have the discussion there, but I don’t know where we would bring this up! PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t have an issue with the general goal you’re trying to achieve, but I think a different approach would have been better. For example, starting with an RfC to gather community input could have been helpful. Starting a conversation on the talk page after looking through the several failed attempts that have come before might have also helped. You could have waited to get a sense of the broader community’s stance on these categories and to see how nominations for the several below played out.
By starting with the nomination of the container category, you’ve inadvertently created a situation where those who want to retain even a single category are now united in opposition. A more incremental approach -- addressing individual categories first -- could have allowed for more productive discussions and gradual consensus-building. This way, you could have chipped away at the issue without alienating contributors who might otherwise support some of your proposals. SMasonGarrison 21:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison I apologize, I do not usually do CfDs, I admit fully this was not the ideal way to do this. I was looking at the murdered sportspeople category because I was writing an article on a murdered sportsperson and I thought that would be a useful category. Only to discover that the consensus was it be deleted several years ago, but it had been recreated without discussion. And then I looked at related categories and discovered the problem in question extends to several. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with the person below in that, I think the reverse is actually more ideal because I think these categories are either all defining or not at all. They all have the same problem. Half the keep votes in the individual CfDs are "there are other categories like this so this is part of that set" (which I sympathize with since they all seem about the same amount of defining). I don't know where I would put an RfC like this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An RFD might work on the category talk page or posting the question on the Categories for discussion talk page. SMasonGarrison 03:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, these are non trivial and useful for navigation and as subcategories. Nayyn (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nayyn How are they non-trivial? Consensus in past CfDs was to delete these. What changed? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).</noinclude>

Category:Aarne-Thompson Grouping

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Aarne-Thompson grouping. The Bushranger One ping only 02:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: not a proper name. --Altenmann >talk 17:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People pardoned by John Adams

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 28#Category:People pardoned by John Adams

Category:Meigs family

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 28#Category:Meigs family

Category:Pornographic actors who died by suicide

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 28#Category:Pornographic actors who died by suicide

Category:Models who died by suicide

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between cause of death and occupation SMasonGarrison 14:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Serves these purposes for Category:Suicides by occupation
If Sucides by occupation is a relevant category than these subcategories are too. Nayyn (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But Suicides by occupation isn't for diffusion purposes. It's to keep the categories where the intersection between cause of death and occupation is defining. I strongly encourage you to make a substantive argument about why this specific category is defining. SMasonGarrison 16:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sportspeople who died by suicide

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category (under a slightly less nice name) was deleted in 2021, along with its subcategories, and recreated this year without discussion. I do not think there is anything new to overcome the 2021 consensus that this is a trivial intersection. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is your feeling, then why not move to nominate all of the categories in Category:Suicides by occupation ?
If you do not consider these categories worthy then there should not be a container category for them. As there is a container category, it is natural that people who find these categories useful / meaningful will continue to create them. Nayyn (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The category is neutral, verifiable and defining. If you are unwilling to have a conversation about Category:Suicides by occupation then it does not constitute a trivial category. Nayyn (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Serves these purposes for Category:Suicides by occupation
If Sucides by occupation is a relevant category than these subcategories are too.
Nayyn (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Otherstuffexists is not a good argument. You're better off demonstrating that this specific intersection is defining. Saying it's defining without explaining why isn't helpful/convincing. SMasonGarrison 16:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Putting it another way, what is the benefit to the site to removing this category? What harm does it cause to the site by existing? The discussion from 2021 considering it trivial was arbitrary and this is a living project. Nayyn (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again -- that's not how categorization works. Non-defining categories do not facilitate navigation and make it harder to find defining categories. Do you have any affirmative arguments that support keeping this category? I can't help you if you don't familiarize yourself with how CFD works. SMasonGarrison 04:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is not a trivial intersection. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AHI-3000 could you please elaborate on why this isn't trivial? SMasonGarrison 20:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Murdered sportspeople

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Discussion about a new category for people who were murdered because they were sportspeople can take place elsewhere. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was deleted in 2021, along with its subcategories, and recreated this year without discussion. I do not think there is anything new to overcome the 2021 consensus that this is a trivial intersection. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same here @PARAKANYAA if this category is not meaningful or worthy of wikipedia, you should nominate Category:Murder victims by occupation or else these sub-categories will continue to be populated.
Wikipedia has evolved since 2021 and if the reason to delete is simply because several years there was a conversation about it, the fact the categories are being created anew means they have utility on the site.
Suggest for deletion the parent categories if they are not meaningful to the site. Nayyn (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This specific intersection is non-defining. SMasonGarrison 14:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is "non-defining" then would it not apply to all in Category:Murder victims by occupation @Smasongarrison? Nayyn (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Otherstuffexists is not a good argument. You're better off demonstrating that this intersection is defining. SMasonGarrison 14:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is not a trivial intersection. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CATDEF, if someone is murdered because of their occupation, like Patrick Dennehy, Otávio Jordão da Silva, Andrés Escobar, or Bryan Pata, then it is a unquestionably a defining intersection. For others, it is non-defining but could be included. As CATDEF says "For non-defining characteristics, editors should use their judgment to choose which additional categories (if any) to include."--User:Namiba 20:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right now that category doesn't make the distinction for the motive -- which is why I asked if you supported narrowing the category. SMasonGarrison 21:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to change the name then? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm indifferent to changing the name. I can't think of a better name but if you can, propose it. However, I think this discussion would benefit from nominating all of the murdered occupation categories and not just sportspeople.--User:Namiba 15:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I tried to do that for the suicide categories people voted keep because I wasn’t nominating them one by one! There is no winning. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely challenging sometimes to know if a individuall evaluation makes sense versus a group nomination. Conceptually, it's when the change is the same versus unique, but editors here often honestly disagree on that point. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete/Open to Narrower Category per WP:G4, recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion and the trivial intersection issue remains. (If a more narrow category can be created for those murdered because they are sports stars, totally open to that since it would be defining.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:NA-Class articles

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep * Pppery * it has begun... 20:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The pages in this category and all its subcategories seem to be largely automatically and incorrectly tagged, and I doubt we need it (whether named "articles" or "pages"). Something like Talk:Lists of animated feature films is now automatically a NA-class article of high importance, when in reality it should be an unassessed class article of high importance. Something like Talk:"Bob" is automatically put into "NA-class" when it should be in "Redirect class". The whole NA-class tree seems to be a giant mistake with many tens of thousands of pages. Fram (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is just the result of template population weirdness. Some of the banners only populate one or the other (I think). It's not standardized. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, but then these templates need updating, as they are categorizing incorrectly. Fram (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree. @MSGJ? PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we had some dodgy code for a few days, which should now be fixed. Talk:Lists of animated feature films is now correctly shown as a redirect, as is Talk:"Bob". If any project does not have a specific category for redirects, then it will fall back to NA-class. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Book leaks

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:NONDEF. There aren't any articles specifically about leaks in this category, unlike the parent category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomSMasonGarrison 14:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:NBA Cup–winning players

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Incorrect English. It should be Cup-winning. We would always use a hyphen for compound words, while an ndash is used to separate phrases. Plus even if it were separate phrases an ndash would require spaces on either side. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created this category and understand and completely agree with you. When I created the Category:NBA championship–winning players, I named it with a hyphen (-), as you correctly stated it should be. However, I noticed that the category NBA championship–winning head coaches uses an ndash (–), which isn't rare on Wikipedia; lots of other categories that should have a hyphen in their title instead have an ndash. When I saw this, I requested to change the name of the aforementioned category for players that have won the NBA Finals to have an ndash instead of a hyphen. My reasoning was to keep consistency with two very similar categories, and also categories that have quite a few people in common given how hard it seemingly would be to win an NBA championship as both a player and a head coach (seven people are in both categories: Bill Russell, Tom Heinsohn, K.C. Jones, Bill Sharman, Steve Kerr, Phil Jackson, and Pat Riley. I knew it was punctuantionally (is that a word?...haha probably not) incorrect, but I figured there may be some kind of naming convention on Wikipedia where all category titles use en dashes regardless of if it's correct or not, even though I couldn't find one when I looked. I am all for changing the title of this category, as well as the other two categories I have mentioned and any others I can find that have an ndash but should have a hyphen. BittersweetParadox (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why it didn't show up, but the categories I mentioned are "Category:NBA championship–winning players" (the category I created with a hyphen but then changed to an ndash), and "Category:NBA championship–winning head coaches" (the category I saw with an ndash and the reason I changed the one with players). BittersweetParadox (talk) 08:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining.--User:Namiba 15:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining. SportsGuy789 (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Re: the name, per MOS:SUFFIXDASH:

    Instead of a hyphen, use an en dash when applying a prefix or suffix to a compound that itself includes a space, dash or hyphen

    —Bagumba (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Come on, this is not defining. Will not show up in these players’ obituaries that’s for sure (at least at this point in the tournament’s history). I have questions if this should even make the players’ infobox. Rikster2 (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. It doesn't seem important to fans right now because it is new, but if you watched any of the games and saw the extra effort the players put in, it's obvious it means a lot to them. It's a trophy and a real accomplishment. I know accomplishments aren't listed in soccer managers' infoboxes but they are definitely considered when evaluating a career. Just because the tournament is new does not mean it is irrelevant. BittersweetParadox (talk) 08:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should've mentioned this but the reason I brought up the soccer managers was to make a parallel to league cups in soccer (such as the F.A. Cup, or the Carabao Cup which is probably a better comparison) being comparable to the NBA Cup. Whoever has the most points at the end of the season wins the league, but the FA cup final is one of the biggest sporting events of the year throughout Europe, if not worldwide, and has nothing to do with league standings, just like the NBA Cup. I know the popularity aspect is not true of the NBA cup right now but that is the intention of the NBA and I do think it will get to that point eventually. Like you, I don't think it is as important as the NBA finals, but I do think it's an accomplishment that should be listed since it is one of two team trophies given out in the NBA, and it carries a lot of importance with the players and coaches. BittersweetParadox (talk) 08:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not at the level of league cups in soccer, not even close. If that becomes the case, the categories could easily be created then (WP:TOOSOON). What I saw was the Milwaukee Bucks players leaving their celebration Champagne untouched because they don’t see it as a real championship. Yes, they played hard for the $500k they each got for winning it. Rikster2 (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Audiovisual introductions

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 26#Audiovisual introductions

Category:Jewish white nationalists

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Category:Neo-Nazis of Jewish descent can be discussed elsewhere if desired. The Bushranger One ping only 02:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't believe this is a defining characteristic. Searching for the term brings up the category and news articles about white nationalism and anti-semitism, not Jews who support white nationalism. There are BLP concerns too with the living people included in the category. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


December 17

edit

Category:Culture by genre

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: manual merge and delete.. – Fayenatic London 17:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: single entry category. I also may have some questions regarding its only subcategory QuantumFoam66 (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support all per Marcocapelle. This does not reflect correct usage of the word genre. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Olaf II of Norway

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The corresponding article page was recently moved to Saint Olaf. Векочел (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Transport in Port Elizabeth

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match with the parent category. GeographicAccountant (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Metropolitan routes in Port Elizabeth

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match with the parent category. GeographicAccountant (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Comics characters by series

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 22:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think I was going to nominate this one a while ago but never did, anyway this category currently contains only one page. It could perhaps be populated but I probably won't due an already existing similar category that is Category:Comics characters by series QuantumFoam66 (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did try to find more categories that belongs to a series.. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but since we already have Category:Comics characters by series, I'm not sure you can allow this category to be kept. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1st century BC in Judea

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 30#Category:1st century BC in Judea

Category:The Bigs video games

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Major League Baseball video games. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There were only two games, it falls short of the threshold for a typical category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Burton family

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Burton family (motorsport). – Fayenatic London 12:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ambiguously named category. This was intended for four related people involved in the sport of auto racing (two father-son pairs where the fathers are brothers), but within the past couple of days somebody tried to file several politicians named Burton (who were obviously related to each other, but not verifiably to the racers at all) in here, before noticing the problem and then replacing it with a non-existent redlinked Category:Burton family of California.
There may be a case that this should just be deleted as WP:OCASSOC -- OCAT doesn't completely ban "family relation" categories outright, but it does suggest that the bar for when one is warranted is considerably higher than just "a handful of family members have articles", and requires some evidence that the family routinely get discussed and covered collectively as a family in the sources -- but I wasn't prepared to formulate a deletion argument since I don't know enough about them to know whether that bar is passable here or not (though obviously I won't stand in the way if consensus does lean more in that direction). But at the very least, if it is kept it does need to be named more clearly and unambiguously due to the existence of other unrelated Burton families. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ice exoplanets

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Purely speculative category with no clear inclusion criteria. None of these planets is known to have a solid icy surface. Some of them could have rocky surfaces, liquid water oceans at the surface, or be mini-Neptunes with no surface. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Eurovision commentators

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. G4 The Bushranger One ping only 01:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT --woodensuperman 11:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G4, recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:WikiProject Lanka Premier League participants

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 27#Category:WikiProject Lanka Premier League participants

Windmills 1400-1800

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 30#Windmills 1400-1800

Category:Female murder–suicides

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 30#Category:Female murder–suicides

Category:Hispanic empresses and queens

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think referring to them as "Hispanic" is likely to get confused/misunderstood as being someone who is Latino/Hispanic as an ethnicity rather than the leader of Hispania. SMasonGarrison 04:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Rájec-Jestřebí

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Head-to-head arcade video games

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:NONDEF I looked through the articles to see that almost none of them use this rare term "Head-to-head". There is no page titled Head-to-head arcade game at the moment either and in turn this category is essentially just for any multiplayer arcade game; more specifically arcade-only games? Anyway, not defining. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see the point of such a category. Is a game defined by having a multiplayer mode? Dimadick (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A merge into both the multiplayer and arcade video games categories would be more helpful though, just not those exact categories, must be a subcategory of either one if already in the parent
QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Swedish politicians of Assyrian/Syriac descent

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:Consistency across category names, similar to Swedish people of Assyrian descent Surayeproject3 (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Swedish people of Assyrian or Syriac descent

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:Consistency across category names Surayeproject3 (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Martyrs of the Chinese Revolution

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category name is not even close to NPOV. Amigao (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Sailing clubs of the United States

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following on from this discussion regarding parent Category:Yacht clubs in the United States that resulted in that being kept. "Yacht club" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this sort of organization, and as demonstrated it is overwhelmingly the preference for the naming of these categories' contents. (The one exception, Maryland, has one that is questionable with regard to being in category scope, and the other's article begins "is a yacht club".) Accordingly these should be renamed to (a) reflect common useage and their contents and (b) maintain consistency with their parent category. (Note that categories for California, Washington (state), and Puerto Rico are already at "Yacht club" and do not need renaming.) - The Bushranger One ping only 01:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Video games about Cossacks

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Cossacks (video game series). Pinging User:The Bushranger to take care of the reparenting; I will do the purge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was created a year ago by editor from well Ukrainian Wikipedia, though I can't handle this category being kept for what it currently looks like; it's pretty random trait for video games; and only contains 4 video games that just have "Cossacks" in the title which makes it way too obvious that they're about Coassacks. Perhaps you merge this category with Category:Works about Cossacks or alternatively create a new category for Category:Cossacks (video game series). QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Chaldean Americans

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category fits better within the scope of American people of Assyrian descent, noting that Chaldean Catholics are ethnically Assyrian and category includes those from the United States Surayeproject3 (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


December 16

edit

Category:LocationParamUsageCheck templates

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Gentle reminder, Gonnym, about WP:C4 :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Can't find this category used anywhere. Gonnym (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Genocide of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia perpetrators

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, article Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia uses "massacres" rather than "genocide", so let's follow that. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I think renaming this category would be a good idea, I'm not sure what the best title would be, the name should not sound too weirdly clunky if you know what I mean. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Propose dual merger/renaming of both Category:Massacres of Poles in Eastern Galicia and Category:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia into Category:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure why these two categories are separate from each other? They both have the same main article (Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia) and both share the same related subcategory (Category:Genocide of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia perpetrators). So yeah we should just combine them together. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Barrancos

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Barrancos is of anthropological and linguistic interest as the home of the unique Barranquenho mix of Spanish and Portuguese, but it's also a town of just 1,800 people, only one of whom has a page on Wikipedia. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:People from Miranda do Douro

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Despite the anthropological interest in the home of the Mirandese language, there is only one article in this category. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:People from Mesão Frio

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category has one page. Town of 4,000 inhabitants offers little chance to populate the category. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:People from Mealhada

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category has one page. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:People from Cuba, Portugal

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category has one page. Town of 4,000 people offers little chance of growth. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:People from Constância

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category has only one page. Town of 4,000 offers little chance of growth. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional parasite characters

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Fictional parasite characters to Category:Fictional parasites
Nominator's rationale: Adding "characters" at the end is just unnecessary, plus I don't see why this should be restricted to (individual) characters that are parasites, rather than making it inclusive of any and all parasitic creatures and organisms in fiction, including species of parasites. "Parasite" is a biological term for a type of living creature, rather than an attribute of an individual person. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Execution sites in England and Wales

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one category in this. If needed, there can be a seperate one made for Wales. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Origin stories

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Origin stories in fiction and purge. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Is this really a defining category? This has recently been added to several film articles related to pop culture IPs, particularly films about characters' origin stories, but most of them have a WP:RECENTISM bias and it has been removed from others. There are only two other articles about specific origin stories beyond this parent subject (those being for Batman and Superman), and no inclusion of other literary origins or even the basis of these works. This feels to me like an WP:Overcategorization issue. The parent article on this subject makes little to no mention of the works presently included in this cat, anyway. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nominator is correct. Origin of what exactly? I can see what the creator might have intended, but this starts to become a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT when it starts going outside of comic superheroes/villains. At least half of fiction describes the origin of something. (The subcategories can find another home.) Jontesta (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 09:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think renaming to Category:Origins in fiction (and purging) is a great idea. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can also get behind Category:Origin stories in fiction. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People who have sacrificed their lives to save others

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 24#Category:People who have sacrificed their lives to save others

Category:Alvarado wrestling family

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 24#Category:Alvarado wrestling family

Category:Neapolitan families

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 24#Category:Neapolitan families


Category:Bailey family (Rugby)

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed on Speedy. Revising to the name of the specific rugby sport, as others in this category structure do. Also decapitalizing "rugby." Mike Selinker (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Families that don't need disambiguation

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't see any other family categories with these names. Mike Selinker (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is another category of Morozov family, see ru:Категория:Морозовы (боярский_род). Aronlee90 (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Russian Wikipedia establishes precedent here. This is the only one on the English Wikipedia. Mike Selinker (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this is specifically the Merchant Morozovs, which is separate from the Boyar Morozovs, which could easily be made into an English category too. —KaliforniykaHi! 21:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right... and when or if it is, we can rename with a disambiguator. Until then, we go with the simplest name. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


December 15

edit

Category:Alltuni family

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 23#Category:Alltuni family

Category:Los Angeles Marathon

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Track and field competitions in Los Angeles and Category:Marathons in California. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one running of the annual event has its own article making this category unnecessary. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Van Hamme family

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. There are only two pages in this family category that are a father-son pair SMasonGarrison 17:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Alizoti family

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. There are only two pages in this family category that aren't clearly related. SMasonGarrison 17:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Döbeln family

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. There are only two pages in this family category that are related somehow? SMasonGarrison 16:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Armfelt family

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. There are only two pages in this family category that are already interlinked as great granddaughter and great grandfather pair SMasonGarrison 16:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Liljencrantz family

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. There are only two pages in this family category that are already interlinked as a sister pair. SMasonGarrison 16:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Tengbom family

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete for now. There are only two pages in this family category that are already interlinked as a father-daughter pair. SMasonGarrison 16:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:LGBTQ Wikipedians

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename and redirect. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The article about this subject is at LGBTQ (LGBTQ redirects to it). Gonnym (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, but shouldn't this be redirected? SMasonGarrison 16:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Plant cognition

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article is Plant intelligence, this category should be changed to the same as the main article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tamil-language web series

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: manual merge to Category:Tamil-language television series (or subcategories thereof when applicable) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: By defintion, none of the series listed here are web series and are actually streaming television series. Notice how some of the series include in their title (TV series). DareshMohan (talk) 11:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Women's Championship

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Salvo weapons

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Salvo weapon" is overly vague, any gun or rocket can fire salvos when in a group with other guns or rockets. The category members are already in other similar categories like Category:Multiple-barrel firearms and Category:Multiple rocket launchers, making this category redundant. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

1st-millennium education

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with mostly only one subcategory. The subcategories and articles have already been appropriately categorized in the century trees. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Category:1st millennium in education might be appropriate, but it would contain none of the contents here except possibly the two articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle, your nomination implies a merge, but you have not specified a target. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lemos Family

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete Category:Lemos Family. No consensus to rename Category:Lemos family, but that can be the subject of its own discussion. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are two separate families from different countries. Mike Selinker (talk) 07:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wright family (English family)

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Matching other categories with "England" in the title. It doesn't need "family" twice.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lara Family

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Category:Lara Family. No consensus to rename Category:Lara family, but that can be the subject of its own discussion. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These two families are distinct political families from different countries. Mike Selinker (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ford political family

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No offense to my Canadian friends, but this is definitely not the first family I think of when I think "Ford political family." Mike Selinker (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Insufficiently disambiguated from Category:Family of Gerald Ford. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Political families needing disambiguation

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Mike Selinker (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per categories like Category:Abdullah political family and Category:Woodworth political family, the disambiguator is built into the name of Category:Political families. Mike Selinker (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear enough for disambiguation. Dimadick (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Publishing families needing disambiguation

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all except for deleting Category:Blackwood family (publishers). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These subcategories of Category:Publishing families need disambiguation, and I'd just standardize them to the style of Category:Simon family (publishing) since publishers tend to publish lots of things. Mike Selinker (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's a nice proposal and cleanup there, support Nayyn (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Brown family (bankers of Baltimore)

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 23#Category:Brown family (bankers of Baltimore)

Category:Collins family (English writers and artists)

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Collins family (England). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Of all possible analogues, this is closest to the category Category:Nicholson arts family. Mike Selinker (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Scott family (architects)

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Family of George Gilbert Scott. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Generally Category:Families by occupation subcategories needing disambiguation use the occupation and a grouping of practitioners like "architects." Mike Selinker (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Association football families needing disambiguation

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 23#Association football families needing disambiguation

Category:Muslim supporters of Israel

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Appears to have been withdrawn, and no support for the nomination. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See the discussion in #Category:Arab supporters of Israel below. I've given my own arguments there. Basically it's for the sake of consistency; Category:Arab Zionists, Category:Christian Zionists, Category:Muslim Zionists. Do you get what I mean? AHI-3000 (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick and @Smasongarrison: What do you think? AHI-3000 (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think what I wrote below -- that the names need to be consistent. I don't understand why you keep tagging me. I've already stated that I thought you should have just added this nomination to the discussion below. SMasonGarrison 23:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison: I'm replying to you. So you suggest that I just edit the discussion below (at #Category:Arab supporters of Israel) to nominate both of these two categories? AHI-3000 (talk) 09:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I suggested several days ago. In several places. However, you can't now because there are now responses to both nominations. SMasonGarrison 14:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting someone to close this discussion, because #Category:Arab supporters of Israel already has both of these two closely related categories proposed together, the debate concerns both of them. AHI-3000 (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Arab supporters of Israel

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 24#Category:Arab supporters of Israel

Category:Anti-LGBTQ and Pentecostal churches

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:LGBTQ and Pentecostalism. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one subcategory, not usefully or pickily navigational. --MikutoH talk! 02:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that remove the child category from the other parent of Category:Anti-LGBTQ and Christianity? SMasonGarrison 03:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very strange title for a category. Are we supposed to categorise all Anti-LGBTQ churches here? Dimadick (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sport shooters from Odisha

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge all. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating for merging

All categories with just 1 or 2 entries.Lost in Quebec (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wilson family (The Beach Boys)

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wilson family (show business). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All other subcategories of Category:Show business families where most are musicians use "X musical family" as a disambiguator, such as Category:Gibb musical family. Some instead use "X family (show business)" so this could instead be Category:Wilson family (show business) as per the nomination below. Mike Selinker (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Show business families needing disambiguation

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are mostly subcategories or sub-subcategories of Category:Show business families. Most other such families use "show business" as their disambiguator (such as Category:Ladd family (show business), likely since actors direct, write, play music, and other show bizzy things.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


December 14

edit

Category:Romance culture

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 09:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is not defining, and doesn't seem accurate. This category says its culture by language family. However, Culture of Vatican City isn't defined by "Romance culture" SMasonGarrison 23:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Jewish men centenarians

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 09:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersections between gender, ethnicity/religion, and longevity. I don't think that this meets the standard under Wikipedia:EGRS. SMasonGarrison 22:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Boycotts of apartheid South Africa

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 22#Category:Boycotts of apartheid South Africa

Category:People from the Crown of Castile

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 24#Category:People from the Crown of Castile

Category:People from the Crown of Aragon

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 24#Category:People from the Crown of Aragon

Category:National blood donation authorities

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 09:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge underpopulated category SMasonGarrison 16:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Chemical vapor deposition techniques

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 09:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: vague, upmerge to the underpopulated parent SMasonGarrison 16:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Printing registration

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duel upmerge. underpopulated category upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 16:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Intersex and medicine

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Intersex healthcare. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See Intersex healthcare, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 18#Category:Intersex or Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 13#Category:Transgender and medicine.

So Category:Intersex healthcare or Category:Intersex topics and medicine? --MikutoH talk! 03:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on alt?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with Intersex healthcare SMasonGarrison 17:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Decades in history

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 24#Decades in history

Category:Deaths from cardiovascular disease

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 24#Category:Deaths from cardiovascular disease

Category:Slavery in Italy

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 22#Category:Slavery in Italy


Category:Slavery in Germany

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Non-governmental organizations

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 24#Category:Non-governmental organizations

Category:Mother runners

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 09:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This seems to be a category for runners who are also mothers. Proposed deletion per WP:TRIVIALCAT which states Avoid categorizing topics by characteristics that are unrelated or wholly peripheral to the topic's notability. 1857a (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that motherhood is peripheral to an athlete’s notability. The decision to have children is one of the most consequential decisions a person can make, and even more so among elite runners whose job depends on the ability to use their bodies to train and perform at the highest levels of the sport. Consider the difference between this and something like a notional “Redheaded Runners” and I think it becomes quite clear.
This categorization may be helpful to Wikipedia readers as there has been media attention on the issue of elite runners losing contracts/health insurance because they became pregnant. See link for example.
In addition, there is an entire brand with books, a podcast, speaking tour, etc (of which I have no affiliation) called Another Mother Runner which brings attention to the intersectionality of motherhood and runners. It started in 2011 and is well-known. Aschbren (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:TRIVIALCAT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not a defining feature. These people are not regularly described as "Mother runners". SMasonGarrison 17:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether it is a common term or not is irrelevant per guidelines for categorization. I’ve never heard the phrase “21st century sportswomen” outside of a Wikipedia category, but that is not being challenged.
    Also, the premise of the above is inconsistent with facts per a quick Google search reveals. Aschbren (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whether or not people are 'regularly described' as it or not, the fact is that the intersection of 'being a mother' and 'being a runner' is trivial. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, that’s a tautology so logically irrelevant.
    Second, trivial means something “of little value or importance.” On the contrary, the decision of elite runners to have children has profound implications on their professional careers. This has been discussed in memoirs, articles, podcasts, and interviews. Just because something is “of little importance” to one of us, doesn’t mean it’s of little importance to the world beyond Wikipedia. In fact, as noted above the category would be useful and appreciated by readers of Wikipedia.
    The fact that Wikipedia biographies have a category like people born in 1991 would, in fact, be trivial because it’s not connected to the notability of the subject. Again, that is not being challenged.
    As a side benefit, it also would help counter perceptions that Wikipedia suffers from a lack of diversity in its viewpoints. This is irrelevant to the argument, admittedly, but would be a small step in improving the reputation of the Wikipedia brand. Aschbren (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and this would be part of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, then. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not righting wrongs to create a categorization that meets all criteria for creation, is noteworthy in its own right, is useful to readers, and is independently verifiable from other sources. I was just pointing out that Wikipedia has been accused of ignoring non-diverse points of view, and this category would help counter that narrative. I even pointed out that’s irrelevant per the guidelines. Aschbren (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, none of the articles mentions this prominently. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the categorization guidelines, “For articles about people, categorize by characteristics of the person the article is about, not characteristics of the article.” Hence being featured prominently in the articles is irrelevant to the category. Also, content exists such that it could be folded into articles in the category. Aschbren (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unclear definition. Is this for professional runners who gave birth during their career, after it, or before it? All of those? Some of those? Only one's whose career was affected by it, how significantly? Do adoptions count? Do step children count? I see what we're going for though. In my brain, this is along the lines of having a category for Catholic or Muslim runners. I just checked and those categories don't exist. Gravel for breakfast (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the category could be further sub-divided as you note doesn’t mean the categorization isn’t valid. If the category becomes unwieldy, sure it could be further divided in the future.
    Independent sources consistently describe included athletes as mothers and as runners, meaning it is objective per categorization guidelines. Given the amount of media attention, memoirs, podcasts, etc that exist on the topic indicate they are not unrelated facets.
    Arguing that x shouldn’t exist because y doesn’t already exist is invalid per categorization guidelines. Also, Muslim Runners may not exist as a category but Muslim Poets does for example. (I have no opinion on whether that should or should not exist.) Aschbren (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial intersection of 2 non connected things. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted above there is significant independent source material about this specific intersectionality indicating they are not unrelated. As Wikipedians, it shouldn’t matter if you or I think they are related (or not). It only matters that other independent sources have consistently and regularly recognized this as a thing that exists, and Wikipedia should reflect that already existing reality. We take no position on whether it should exist or whether it existing is a good thing or a bad thing, but simply noting the existence of the intersectionality is neutral per categorization guidelines. Aschbren (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As Wikipedians, it shouldn’t matter if you or I think they are related (or not)- it does matter, because that's how Wikipedia defines categories. This category is WP:TRIVIALCAT and WP:NOTDEFINING. Also, you don't need to reply to every single person that disagrees with you, as it's WP:BLUDGEONing. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Independent sources independent and reliably describe the included athletes as mothers and as runners. Simply asserting it does not does not make it so
    Others are assuming the premise (it’s trivial, therefore it’s trivial). I’m pointing out with reasoning that independent sources show otherwise. How is a discussion supposed to take place if we do not discuss? I’m happy to be proven wrong, and I hope others are similarly objective. Please do not assume ill intent. (See guidelines for dispute resolution) Aschbren (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to demonstrate why it's a defining category that should be kept. Of the people in the category, almost half of the article don't mention that the person either has children, most just state it as a 1-2 sentence side thought to the main article, and only 2 or 3 articles have a paragraph or more about competing as a mother/getting back to fitness after giving birth. That is why I don't believe this category is necessary, because being a "running mother" isn't a defining trait for most of the people- they're notable as runners. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Television-screenshots of Pokémon

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-member category which is unhelpful for navigation; dual upmerge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dual merge per nom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Support-group-stub

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Stub template of unclear utility. It's currently being used on just two articles, with the result that it's filing them directly in Category:Organization stubs instead of having its own dedicated "Support group stubs" category -- but because both of those articles also already have {{US-org-stub}} on them, which files them in the Category:United States organization stubs subcategory, that means this template is adding absolutely nothing but unnecessary duplicate categorization. Bearcat (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:African cricket ground stubs

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub categories not approved through proper process. As always, stub categories are not free for just any user to create on a whim for any narrowcast topic of their own choice -- the minimum size bar for a stub category is 60 articles, so stub categories have to be approved for creation through WikiProject Stub sorting. None of these were approved through that process at all, however, and none of them have 60 articles in them -- and unlike the similar batch I nominated below, in this set even the continent-level categories can't be salvaged, because even just upmerging the country-level subcategories to their continent-level parents still won't get to 60. Bearcat (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It would be difficult to make lists of 60 notable cricket grounds (whether stub or of decent length) for some of these countries, such as kenya or Zimbabwe. Australia can probably manage it, but with the cat sizes as they stand, none of these stub cats can be justified. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Most of these countries won't have 60 notable cricket grounds (SA and Aus being only 2 possible exceptions), and if in future, one of these countries has 60 stub cricket grounds that are all notable, then and only then should these be considered for re-creation (via proper process). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, even if any of this country gets 60 notable grounds, it's unlikely for all of them to be left as stubs at the same time. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 12:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bangladeshi cricket ground stubs

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub categories not approved through proper process. As always, stub categories are not free for just any user to create on a whim for any narrowcast topic of their own choice -- the minimum size bar for a stub category is 60 articles, so stub categories have to be approved for creation through WikiProject Stub sorting. But none of these were approved through that process at all, and none of them have 60 articles in them -- a couple of sibling categories do surpass that bar, so I'm leaving well enough alone even though they weren't properly approved either, but none of the rest of these are large enough. Bearcat (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:De Havilland Canada Dash 7

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 09:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category only contains its epynomonous article (already in the parent category) and an accidents subcategory (which doesn't belong in the aircraft-by-manufacturer category, and is already categorised correctly otherwise). The Bushranger One ping only 00:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


December 13

edit

Category:Years AD by century

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Years (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer, they are the only subcategory of their parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Years AD and Category:Years BC.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Publicity photographs

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: implement LaundryPizza03's suggestion. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is populated by the use of the licensing template {{Non-free promotional}} on image files. The text of the template reads, in part, This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit. This scope, reflected in how the template is used, includes publicity photos, but also ads and promotional artwork. The following subcategories should also be renamed per this change:
 • Category:Publicity photographs with missing fair-use rationale to Category:Promotional images with missing fair-use rationale
 • Category:Publicity photographs with no terms to Category:Promotional images with no terms
 • Category:Publicity photographs with terms of use to Category:Promotional images with terms of use
Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 20:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the categories.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Love this, thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 16:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People by criminal charge

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to delete; but this is not authorization to use these categories willy-nilly. To start, there were minority views that not even dead people belong in these categories; this point of view did not gain traction. Therefore, the main arguments in this discussion centered around our WP:BLP policy. BLP arguments are – justifiably – given great weight when assessing consensus. To overcome a BLP argument for deletion, you need to convincingly rebut the argument, and mere numbers cannot decide BLP does not apply in a given situation. WP:BLPCRIMINAL is the policy which applies in this situation, and proponents of deletion argued that this meant these categories should be deleted. Refuting this challenge required strong, PAG-based arguments. This high burden was met by the arguments of Levivich et al, who demonstrated that BLPCRIMINAL urged caution, not a blanket prohibition. They also noted that there are some dead individuals for whom BLP is not applicable. Now, where does that leave us? These categories will continue to exist, and there is not some sort of "no BLPs allowed" restriction. However, normal editorial policies still apply. In particular, BLPCRIMINAL does say to exercise caution when using these categories. Therefore, exercise caution; this discussion is certainly not carte blanche to throw caution to the wind. There is also clear disagreement over whether these categories should be included on BLPs, so such inclusion requires a citation to a reliable source (per WP:BLPRS and WP:CATV), and the WP:ONUS is on those seeking inclusion to demonstrate consensus to do so. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be a clear consensus at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Category:People charged with rape that including articles in categories such as "People charged with X" is a violation of the policy on including BLPs in criminal-related categories at WP:BLPCRIMINAL.

WP:BLPCRIMINAL states that a requirement for inclusion in a sub-category of Category:Criminals is that "the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal.".

Given that many of the proposed categories already have sub-categories for people who were convicted, keeping categories for "people charged with X" just invites articles to be added to the "people charged with X" criminal categories before they've been tried and/or convicted.

For any subcategories that are "People convicted of X" or "People acquitted of X", I would propose relocating them to be under Category:People by criminal conviction and Category:People acquitted of crimes, respectively, if they aren't already there. RachelTensions (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What about for non-BLPs? Some people surely died before they were convicted, which in some cases is defining enough. I still don't get why we need a separate convicted of tree in addition to the actual crime category. Ideally we'd delete those too, but that will never happen. I feel like in a world where we restricted this to only non-BLPs this category would be fine, but I don't think that's feasible. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, with one exception: Category:People charged with apostasy in Iran has been nominated elsewhere for renaming to "convicted". Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support in principle. However, I don't think that we can just delete the categories without handling the fact that they have the charged crime in common. For example, we would need to move People convicted of crimes against humanity to crimes against humanity otherwise after the deletion, it would only be in People convicted of international crimes. I do wonder if converting the categories into container categories with this explanation about policy would facilitate navigation. SMasonGarrison 21:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Category:People charged with apostasy in Iran has now been deleted as a result of the discussion elsewhere. RachelTensions (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mass deletion. For clarity, BLPCRIMINAL states: Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal. If we are including verifiable content in articles that state people were charged with X, per WP:BLPCRIME via WP:BLPPUBLIC, then how does it suddenly become a BLPVIO to place them in a cat that says they were charged with X? Sean Combs, for example, charged with racketeering and sex trafficking. Is that not now relevant to his notability? WP:CATV says Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. And some of these people in these cats are dead, so BLPCRIMINAL doesn't apply. For instance, Jeffrey Epstein, charged with sex trafficking, which is quite clearly relevant to his notability. We also have Category:Sexual misconduct allegations, these are just allegations, some of the people in this cat have never been charged, tried or convicted. Joe Biden and Clarence Thomas are both in that cat. Are we saying that cat is a BLPVIO as well? If someone wants to make a case by case basis to exclude a BLP from a cat, that is fine, but I oppose this mass deletion per the rationale provided. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that sexual misconduct allegations category is also a BLP violation. As for the category requirements for Category:Criminals, relevance to notability is only one requirement, while another requirement is that "the subject was convicted". So anyone who should be in that category would already have a conviction and can be in a "convicted" category rather than "charged with". For BLP violations, the policy is to remove the information and then to determine if the information was appropriate to include, not to include potential violations and then make case-by-case determinations whether to exclude. Further, BLPs without a conviction should not be included in a criminal category or subcategory at all under our policies. As for deceased individuals or historical cases, I believe the proper course of action would be to create a new category that is specific to that designation and would not apply to any living people. – notwally (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you think that sexual misconduct allegations category that includes articles about sexual misconduct allegations against prominent public figures like Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby, Sean Combs, Michael Jackson, Donald Trump, Woody Allen, Kevin Spacey, Clarence Thomas, Harvey Weinstein, is a BLPVIO? I don't know, I don't think you'll find community consensus for that POV. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of those people have convictions and should be in the appropriate category for those with convictions. For the rest, they are a BLP violation. WP:BLPCRIMINAL is clear. Categories alleging criminal allegations can only be included if there is a conviction that is not overturned on appeal. If you disagree with the policy, then you need to get the policy changed. – notwally (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that sexual misconduct allegations category is also a BLP violation WP:BLPCRIMINAL is clear. If you disagree with that category, then you need to nominate it for deletion. Please see our deletion policy and how to use CfD, if you are unsure about the proper procedures, or don't know how to start a deletion discussion. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a pending discussion (right here) about related categories and how to proceed, and I don't see how it would any sense to start another deletion discussion until this one is resolved. If you would like to take this opportunity to explain how sexual assault allegations are not allegations of criminal conduct, feel free. – notwally (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course sexual assault allegations are allegations of criminal conduct, and it appears there is a long standing consensus to put those sort of articles in Category:Sexual misconduct allegations, considering that cat is seven years old, and has sixty articles in it. Feel free to start a discussion on the talk pages on any of those sixty pages outling your serious concerns. There's no need to wait for this discussion to be resolved. Like you said, WP:BLPCRIMINAL is clear, so you shouldn't encounter any objections. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The user you’re replying to apparently believes that people merely accused of a crime are criminals,[18] which is obviously not true from a legal and BLP perspective, so they have different views on crime than most of the world and the Wikipedia community. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, no caveats. These categories are all clearly BLP violations and should be deleted as soon as possible. Loki (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These categories have existed for too long and all of them that include living people violate BLPCRIME. For anyone who has a conviction, they should be put in a "convicted" category. There are cases where a "charged with" or similar category may be relevant (e.g., historical figures charged with witchcraft), but those should be handled with proper categories that exclude any living people. – notwally (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Notwally How do you propose it being covered in a way to exclude living people? That doesn’t seem possible by just changing the name. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think those with better knowledge of categories would be able to offer more useful suggestions. Some things also don't need to be categorized. – notwally (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you said above that the "proper course of action" would be to "create a new category that is specific to that designation and would not apply to any living people", which I do not think is possible. I do think the deletion of this category creates a problem for the existence of the convicted/acquitted of cats, which should also probably be deleted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The acquitted, yes, but the convicted can stay. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Without the existence of the others that category makes no sense. It's part of the set. The convictions aren't the defining bit, any more than acquitted is, it is the crime. Without that, we don't need an oversimplified version of the conviction as a category in addition to the actual criminal category. For example, people convicted of murder is just a worse way to put someone in the murderer category. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's not possible, then they should just not be categorized. It is possible for others, such as my prior example of "historical figures charged with witchcraft". – notwally (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think that is a logical thing to categorize by if the wider tree does not exist. People still get charged with witchcraft in some places, so "historical" is an arbitrary cutoff. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It means the people are by definition not living. "People accused in the Salem witch trials" is a current subcategory of the categories under discussion, which is another way to limit the category to non-living people. If you don't think that is adequate, then the category simply should not exist at all. WP:BLPCRIMINAL is a policy, and an important one. – notwally (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not arguing for the category to be kept, but I would like consistency in how this is handled relative to other categories, since I think the non-BLP problems with this category apply to several others. "Historical figure" is a category type we only have three of, and I would say is a poor fit for this situation so I see no reason to make more. I think they should simply all be deleted (meaning ones related to status of criminal process, e.g. convicted/acquitted/whatever other ones we have). PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mass deletion. There are several dead historical figures captured by these categories for whom BLP does not apply. Charges against, e.g., Augusto Pinochet and Slobodan Milošević are signifcant enough to be mentioned in their leads, and should be reflected by categories. Renaming the categories to include only deceased people would eliminate the BLP concern without losing the navigation tool for historical figures. Additionally, some of these categories (blasphemy, witchcraft, apostasy) relate to charges that would be widely understood to be persecution, rather than morally culpable crimes, and warrant a separate discussion.--Trystan (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Renaming the categories to include only deceased people would eliminate the BLP concern without losing the navigation tool for historical figures. Do you have suggestions on how to rename the categories to make it clear they're not for living people? "Deceased people charged with X"? Whatever it is, it needs to be crystal clear that the categories in question are not meant for living people.
    The question becomes how much actual value do these categories add that it warrants the trouble of splitting off the dead from the living just so they can be categorized for crimes they were never convicted of? RachelTensions (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Deceased" is fine, or "Historical", with the category descriptions in either case clarifying not to apply it to anyone covered by WP:BLP or WP:BDP. I think they add a lot of value. Particularly in Category:People indicted for crimes against humanity, there are several articles where the charges are not only defining, but are the central reason for their notability.--Trystan (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am cautiously relisting this. There is clear consensus (both in numbers and given the strength of a BLP argument) that something needs to change. Is renaming an acceptable outcome? If so, what should the new name be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or rename the categories to specify deceased/historical figures when appropriate, or change the policy. The policy as written is unambiguous. As others have said, deleting these categories would create a manual recategorization job. I assume that a renaming of them would involve a more onerous job going through each individual article in every category, which could take time or be forgotten about; BLP violations are time sensitive, so based on that I think WP:TNT is the better option. Safrolic (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion for the same reasons given by other opponents. AHI-3000 (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Eventual closer should remember that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override PAG, especially when it comes to BLP. The policy is unambiguous. 04:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC) Safrolic (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. It doesn't matter if they're alive or dead, being criminally charged is not sufficient for categorization. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not, if it is defining? For Marie Besnard and Aisling Brady McCarthy, the only thing they are notable for is being charged with murder. The latter is still living, so BLP may compel us to leave her with no categories capturing her only claim to notability. But where BLP doesn't apply, why would we choose to leave articles without categories capturing their central defining aspects?--Trystan (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion, WP:BLPCRIMINAL is clear that while care and consideration is required there is a valid BLP purpose to be served by such categories. "Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal." There may be individual BLP violations in this mass of data, but the existance of the categories is unambiguously not a BLP violation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: #1 maybe there's a WP:BLP reason for removing BLPs from these categories, but that wouldn't apply to non-BLPs, so it's not a reason to delete the categories altogether. #2 WP:BLPCRIMINAL says Caution should be used, it does not create a blanket prohibition. If caution has not been used in assigning these categories to certain articles, then maybe the categories should be removed from those articles; that's not a reason to delete the categories. #3 the Category:Criminals and its subcategories part of BLPCRIMINAL shouldn't apply because Category:Suspected criminals and its subcats shouldn't be subcats of Category:Criminals because suspected criminals are not necessarily criminals. That's an argument for removing Category:Suspected criminals from Category:Criminals, it's not a reason to delete the category or its subcategories. #4 Being charged with a crime is a defining feature for many notable people, so they're perfectly useful/legitimate categories in our category system. Levivich (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per HEB and Levivich. Category:Suspected criminals should not be a subcategory of Category:Criminals since it contains a hodgepodge of categories about convicted criminals (e.g. serial killer ones) and innocent people (i.e. people acquitted of crimes). If they're convicted, they should be in Category:Criminals by crime and not this one. What these categories need is a reordering to properly sort out the convicted categories from the unconvicted ones. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand on this, WP:BLPCRIMINAL is unambiguous, but the only reason why it even applies here appears to be because of a serious miscategorization issue. The policy presupposes that everyone in the "Criminal" subcategories, which should be case, but is not necessarily the case for categories such as these. Explicitly legally innocent people such as Category:People acquitted of crimes and Category:People wrongfully convicted of a crime are also included. If we just blindly apply BLPCRIMINAL, then we cannot categorize anyone acquitted or wrongfully convicted of a crime in those categories, which goes against the spirit of the policy. The obvious solution is to fix the mischaracterization and remove any entries for which the charges are not defining/relevant to notability.
    Doing a spot check of of Category:People charged with sex crimes, most cases are of dead people (no BLP issues), then cases left over after a conviction/acquittal has occurred (suboptimal), with the remainder being ones where they are charges of criminals notable for being criminals (probably fine as long as they meet notability standards as an exception to BLPCRIME). One case was of someone currently in trial with a section devoted to the charges, but who is overall not a major figure and the charges itself not being a bit story. I removed the category for not being defining, but imagine that in the case of a major, public figure and the charges themselves being a very large story, inclusion may be appropriate. Based on this, I think the BLP issues can be resolved through normal category maintenance. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on my comments, I've also removed Category:Suspected criminals from Category:Criminals, since that's a BLP violation. That technically resolves the WP:BLPCRIMINAL issue, though WP:BLPCRIME is still a factor, though that is not a hardline rule and only requires editors to seriously consider the issue. Here, since being charged is not the same as being convicted, I think it's probably fine for inclusion as long as entries are properly maintained. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To add on to this, if we want to make maintenance easier, we should probably make these container categories, with subcategories such as convicted of x, acquitted of x, died before trial for x, fugitive for x, awaiting trial for x instead of a general "charged with" category. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional gnomes

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 23#Category:Fictional gnomes

Category:Single seat helicopters

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Ultralight helicopters and purge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't categorize aircraft by their number of seats. Arguably non-defining; if you take out additional seats for various reasons (adding equipment, long-range fuel tanks, etc.) does the helicopter count as a single-seater? The Bushranger One ping only 22:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThere is some truth to that for sure, even if most aircraft do get rated for a certain number of passengers. For FAA Ultra-light helicopters they are only allowed to carry one passenger, so we just follow the sources we don't have to make a determination or expand this to other light aircraft that have more flexibility. A75 (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the nominator is incorrect. Helicopters are categorized this way, the FAA standard for ultra-light helicopters have to be one seat. If you see this list List of ultralight helicopters. I did not choose describe them as FAA Ultralight helicopters, because single seat helicopters have existed before this FAA regulation though they are popular now. In addition, the recent development evtols such as the Jetson One are also categorized this way, and are still baiscally helicopters even if they take a different technical approach. A75 (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here, don't take my word for it. If you see Ultralight aircraft (United States), you can see that having a single-seat is important part of this standard. Thank you A75 (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For comparison, it is common for fighter aircraft, to be categorized as single seat or two seat fighter aircraft, just to round out this discussion. A75 (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Helicopters and aircraft are categorized this way by the FAA, yes. Wikipedia's categorization scheme does not categorize aircraft by number of seats, nor should we, as it is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the aircrat, especially to an outside observer. Also an "ultralight helicopter" may well be required to be a single-seat helicopter, but "single-seat helicopter" =/= "ultralight helicopter" as ultralight aircraft is a very specific classification by the FAA. Category:Ultralight helicopters would be a valid categorization alongside Category:Ultralight aircraft. Category:Single seat helicopters is not. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having one seat is definitely a defining trait, and many single seat helicopters are noted as such. This is similar to fighter aircraft, and of course passenger airliners often mention passenger capacity. I don't have an opinion on starting another category for ultra-light helicopters right now, though we can agree that not all single-seat helicopters may be ultra-lights. A75 (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether or not it is consisdered WP:DEFINING, it doesn't change the fact that we don't categorise aircraft by number of seats. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Agapanthiinae-stub

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Template:Agapanthiinae-stub


Category:Persian physicists

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename and re-parent, the articles in the category are about medieval people so the category should be under Category:Medieval Iranian people and named accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
@Smasongarrison: pinging nominator at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. SMasonGarrison 04:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Flexible weapons

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 17:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is vague what "flexible" means as I initially took it to mean weapons that can be used in numerous situations, not ones that are literally bendy. And in that case, even swords can bend so they are some degree of flexible. There is no main article for this either, so I think it should not exist as-is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:WikiProject G-Unit Records participants

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 17:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Project hasn't existed since 2011 after MfD. Gonnym (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People Democratic Party politicians

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Peoples Democratic Party (Nigeria) politicians. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates Category:Peoples Democratic Party (Nigeria) politicians. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sport shooters from West Bengal

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 17:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Medieval Catholic churches by decade

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge all. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1A: propose populating with churches built as a Catholic church
  • Option 1B: propose populating with churches which still are a Catholic church
  • Option 2: propose merging
Nominator's rationale: populate or merge?, it is obvious that these categories can be populated further when desired. The question is how, because meanwhile a substantial number of medieval churches have been converted from Catholicism to Protestantism. So should we categorize churches as Catholic when they were built as Catholic, or when they are still Catholic? I have added option 2, to upmerge, because this conveniently circumvents the previous dilemma. If there appears to be support for option 2 I will add siblings categories to the nomination (  Done). If there is more support for option 1 then the question is who is going to populate these categories because it is a huge task. I will also leave a notice at the Christianity and Catholicism WikiProject talk pages. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:PlayStation 4 Pro enhanced games

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A large number of recent games have undocumented support for this system and fall into this category, but many don't have reliable sources confirming such support, so it is impossible to have a properly representative and accurate list without breaking WP:DEFINING. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memoryman3 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the categories
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have to disagree this is not defining... For the recent PS5 Pro release in Nov there was a big to do on the games that would be enhanced. That support for the games being in these categories is big in the articles for the games is not a fault of the category but editors failing to add appropriate sources when including them in these categories. Masem (t) 20:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per same rationale as Masem. Can't blame the category if editors aren't properly citing sources. --JDC808 ♫ 22:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Response to the most recent comments?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Dual screen phone

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Dual screen phone

Category:Trees of the Eastern United States

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 22#Category:Trees of the Eastern United States

Category:American social media influencers

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 24#Category:American social media influencers

Category:Rape in video games

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 22#Category:Rape in video games

Category:Engineers from Jharkhand

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 24#Category:Engineers from Jharkhand

Category:Engineers from Himachal Pradesh

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 24#Category:Engineers from Himachal Pradesh

Category:Delta College Mustangs football players

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 09:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are two different names for the same category, so they should be merged.
Speedy merge request was opposed because there was no clear naming convention, so I am proposing to use the "San Joaquin Delta Mustangs" convention because it is more specific (includes location) than "Delta College Mustangs". Whatever name is chosen, they need to be merged because there are two categories for the same content. Habst (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion was started here but a consensus was never reached, but as the main category (Category:San Joaquin Delta Mustangs football) uses the specific name I would lean towards using that naming convention for all categories. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other categories such as the school's baseball ones should also be merged for complete consistency if San Joaquin Delta is chosen over Delta College. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give extra time for objections, given it was opposed at CFD. I will tag Category:San Joaquin Delta Mustangs football players; if there are no further comments in a week this can be closed as (regular) merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Fresnillo Mineros players

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These refer to the same team. For some reason, English-speakers still haven't figured out whether to call Latin sports teams "[Mascots] de [City]" or just "[City] [Mascots]." Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


December 12

edit

Category:Mangione family

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete both. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: New category:Mangione family (Maryland) has been created. Current category should be turned into a disambiguation page. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jak and Daxter characters

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Jak and Daxter. (non-admin closure) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category only contains one article and a redirect subcategory. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Křivoklát

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:People from Rakovník District. (non-admin closure) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Sport etymologies

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't make categories comprised solely of redirects to sections of articles expressly created for the purpose of the category itself. If the articles are not notable enough to be actual pages, the category should not exist. Due to being against policy, it should be deleted and the redirects should be too. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Mosques 1200-1900

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge, up to 1900 mostly single-article categories, which is unhelpful for navigation between articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Active massively multiplayer online games

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Massively multiplayer online games. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As the opposite Category:Inactive massively multiplayer online games, the following was created months prior to the other for non-active variant. However there are multiple reasons why I nominated this category, 1 because we do have a category for Category:Active multiplayer online games or Category:Active online games but we do have Category:Inactive online games as well as Category:Inactive multiplayer online games and Category:Inactive massively multiplayer online games. This category is also not complete; any article already in Category:Massively multiplayer online games or a subcategory of it (only including individual games) which is not also located under the inactive games could be added, but I'm asking deletion here so tell me what you think. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Persistent worlds

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF, an old category that at this point is filled with articles for games not generally associated with persistent worlds; it's mostly likely not defining; especially when given the fact scanning for the word "persistent" in many articles gets you nothing. The fact calling some of them persistent has become subject to opinion. I am also considering several other categories related to online games deletion in both active and subsequent discussions. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pensions in Armenia

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Pensions by country and Category:Retirement in Armenia. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: category with one eponymous article Gjs238 (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy upmerge to Pensions by country and Retirement in Armenia under WP:C2F. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Browser-based multiplayer online games

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: dual merge to Category:Browser games and Category:Multiplayer online games. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: made all the way a few years ago, I feel like this category is not wroth keeping. I do not see this specific intersection of browser platform and multiplayer online as defining, like as if it was considered more defining back in 2008? Also the parent categories that this category currently make absolutely no sense. It should be a child of just broswer and multiplayer online games, not mmorpgs and mmogs cuz that doesn't make sense. Anyway, I can't see this category being kept. Individual article should be moved to the browser games category, and if not already in a subcategory of Multiplayer online games added to that category. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Further back

edit
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Previous 22 to 42 days and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Previous 43 to 63 days.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Previous_8_to_21_days&oldid=1048280107"