Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 4
November 6 >

November 5

[edit]

Template:Scombroidei-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: rename to Template:Scombriformes-stub. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It would be much better if this stub type covered the whole order instead of just a polyphyletic subtaxon. And the category should be moved to Category:Scombriformes stubs. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 23:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: At WP:TFD it says "Stub templates and categories should be listed at Categories for discussion, as these templates are merely containers for their categories, unless the stub template does not come with a category and is being nominated by itself", so this is actually the right venue. Please reconsider your close. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 01:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's been awhile and that had slipped my mind, my apologies. Unclosed accordingly! - The Bushranger One ping only 02:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nippon TV

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 13#Category:Nippon TV

Category:CONCACAF Gold Cup stadiums

[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 21:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More clear examples of WP:PERFCAT. User:Namiba 18:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films with a limited theatrical release

[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 21:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Is the fact that a film had a limited theatrical release a defining characteristic? DonIago (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There were some films released in select theaters. Abhiramakella (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥📱 18:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, what defines them is that they are Netflix, or Amazon, etc. films and the articles are already categorized as such. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-defining and potentially overbroad. Many films have been given a limited release to make the cutoff for the Academy Awards and have then been given a full re-release at a more profitable time of the year, or after a nomination generates buzz. Some have initially been given a limited release as a publicity stunt. Others have been limited artificially by independent or otherwise poor distribution, or by problematic or niche subject matter. Some films originally under the poor-distribution/problematic/niche umbrella have earned a wide release after unexpectedly good box-office returns or "discovery" by a major distributor (often after a similar film unexpectedly makes loads of money). These factors make it difficult to define which films belong in the category. As pointed out by Marcocapelle, the category's author(s) seem to have only considered films released on streaming platforms, which is a relatively recent phenomenon that's more easily defined but already sufficiently covered by other categories. Carguychris (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: another factor muddying the waters is that most of the world film industry has historically revolved around the United States, and many so-called foreign films produced elsewhere have historically received a "limited" release in the U.S. despite having been widely released in their home countries. This raises a WP:NPOV issue regarding what constitutes "limited", as it's often easy to find American WP:RS sources describing such films as being in limited release, even though this isn't necessarily true—is it limited only in the U.S.? Carguychris (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:GMA Network personalities

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 13#Category:ABS-CBN personalities

Category:ABS-CBN personalities

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 13#Category:ABS-CBN personalities

Category:Fictional hamsters

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 13#Category:Fictional hamsters


Category:Websites with far-right material

[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) 03:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The formulation of this category name is problematic. What does it mean to be "with" some kind of material? If a centrist or left-leaning website quotes far-right material to debunk it, is that not a website "with far-right material"? The category description requires that entries in the category be "verified by reliable sources", but does that mean that the sources need to specify that the entries are "with far-right material" rather than being "far-right websites"?
I note that we have no other categories for websites categorized as being "with" some kind of material, and I suspect that there is a reason for this. BD2412 T 15:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am very hesitant about this rename. The point of the current category name is (undoubtedly) that the websites are frequently visited by people with far-right opinions while that does not make them far-right websites per se. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fully agree with you that a category named Websites with far-right material is not worth keeping. Yet a lot of the pages currently categorized in Category:Websites with far-right material do not fit in Category:Neo-Nazi websites or Category:Alt-right websites but would fit in Category:Far-right websites, so my endorsement of renaming is a technical trick to ease categorization, nothing more. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well do they fit Category:Far-right websites? I doubt so, at least for a substantial number of articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • «Well do they fit Category:Far-right websites?» => Most of them do fit in my opinion: Category:Alt-right websites, Category:Breitbart News, Category:Neo-Nazi websites, Category:WorldNetDaily, (from B to F) Big League Politics, BitChute, Brasil Paralelo, Counterspin Media, The Daily Caller, The Daily Wire, Disclose.tv, Document.no, Freestartr, FrontPage Magazine. Bulli Bai case, DC Inside, Mais qui?, Reddit, do not. Bulli Bai case and Mais qui? fit in a potential Category:Far-right in Internet. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The corresponding categories in de.wikipedia.org and fr.wikipedia.org are titled Category:Far-right in Internet so there is room for a broader category. See also wikidata:Q2135509. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Marcocapelle. Existing categories are sufficient to categorize things in an encyclopedic manner. As for broader categorizations, "right" and "far right" are too broadly and incoherently defined in real-world usage to make a coherent category for websites. In addition, one website currently in the category is being discussed about whether far-right is appropriate label for that page. CNMall41 (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Governors of Mexican California

[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:Governors of Alta California. C2C. The Bushranger One ping only 21:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, consistent with article space, since Mexican California redirects to Alta California. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Canadian Soccer Championship

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 13#Category:Canadian Soccer Championship

Category:National artists of Thailand

[edit]
Nominator's rationale: I previously raised objection to the decapitalisation of the category title at WT:CFD, though the reversion process seems to have fallen through the cracks. Anyway, as I mentioned in that discussion, the National Artist title is an award, and directly using the award title for the category does feel a bit unnatural. To compare, we don't refer to Academy Award "Best Actors", but "Best Actor winners". Renaming the category as proposed would better reflect the nature of the title, i.e. its being an award, not a job. Paul_012 (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I think the proposed form matches the general preference at CfD to follow the article title, though I personally dislike parenthesis in category titles when natural disambiguation is possible. So I'll also list Category:National Artist of Thailand awardees, Category:National Artist awardees of Thailand, Category:Thai National Artist awardees, and Category:Thailand National Artist awardees as alternative suggestions. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus favors a rename, though no clear consensus on what the new name should be. In particular, thoughts on Josh's comment (which would imply lowercase-a "National artist")?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Reply to relisting comment) I think there's agreement on Category:National Artist (Thailand) awardees. Hey man im josh's comment was in favour of lower-case national artists if the term is in plural, but the original proposal is not affected by this. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose regarding Category:National Artist (Thailand) awardees since it's not an ordinary award (or even an ordinary honorary award), it's an honorary title given by the state (see National Artist or similar honorary titles like People's Artist and Honored Artist/Merited Artist). If we look at the current category names for this kind of title (Category:People's_Artists, Category:Honored Artists, and Category:Merited Artists, which also would be affected by this discussion, I believe), most have the form "... Artists of country" (for many the article title matches that but not for all), a few have the lower-case variant of that ("... artists of country"), and one has the form "Recipients of the title of Merited Artist of country". If we want to avoid the plural, I would support something along the lines of the last form ("Recipients of the title of x", where x can match the article title); "awardees" is very uncommon in general (basically not used atm, see search) and seems like a particularly odd choice for recipients of a title.
    If we want to have something closer to the current naming scheme (i.e. a plural form), I think the question is whether honorary titles fall under "Positions, offices, and occupational titles". I could not find a answer in discussions on that (I have seen some discussion about the (honorary) title of "Fellow", where it was argued that this could be interpreted as a position within a society, but I think that applies to this current discussion not as much), but it seems to me like all the examples in WP:JOBTITLES are very much occupation related (and that this was the intent behind this guideline), which the honors discussed here are clearly not. If we believe that honorary titles fall under WP:JOBTITLES, then arguments based on the specificity of the title would be irrelevant, since that is is not a reason to capitalize it per WP:JOBTITLES. Similarly, the argument that "National Artist" is a proper noun and that this leads to the plural being a proper noun (and capitalized) as well wouldn't work since there seems to be a consensus that such plural forms of titles are, in fact, not proper nouns and always capitalized (see Talk:List of presidents of the United States/Archive 13#Requested move 27 July 2019), and honestly, if "Presidents of the United States" is not considered a proper noun, then "National Artists" definitely isn't either. So, if we decide that WP:JOBTITLES does indeed apply to honorary titles, I think the lower-case plural is a given. If we decide that honorary titles do not fall under "Positions, offices, and occupational titles", then we still have MOS:PEOPLETITLES as a guideline, which doesn't say anything about plurals (although something is implied by an individual's name). I think the proper nouns argument would still lead to lower-case plural, but the consensus and arguments were specifically in reference to WP:JOBTITLES, so who knows. Felida97 (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is already too long, but I want to note a more general consideration (and potential argument for a capitalized plural despite MOS:JOBTITLES) that I came across when thinking about this discussion, and that is the fact that categories are obv inherently different from articles in various ways (and have a kind of special/particular function), and it may be debatable to what extent an article guideline like WP:JOBTITLES (or style guidelines, such as the Chicago Manual of Style, that are frequently referenced in style discussions) should apply to categories or category names (I'm not sure whether there is a nice analog equivalent for those). Or are categories perhaps so distinct/special in their structure/purpose that one could argue to have different rules for certain aspects? One aspect where this is already the case is that article titles generally should be singular in form (see WP:SINGULAR), whereas names of set categories are generally plural, which totally makes sense because of the different structure and function compared with articles. But, as I said, this is more general consideration. Felida97 (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Awardees is just what I came up with off the top of my head, so I'm open to other suggestions. But Category:Recipients of the title of National Artist of Thailand does seem rather unwieldy. RevelationDirect and Hey man im josh, what do you think? --Paul_012 (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with either of those. I acknowledge I could be wrong about "Artists", but it does seem that pluralizing the title would result in MOS:JOBTITLES applying, so whatever is done to get around that I'm fine with. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's true (although in this instance it would be Category:Recipients of the title of National Artist (Thailand) to match the article title, right? [side note: I noticed that some of these titles have the "of country" part in the official title, but the Thailand one does not afaict, so the article title National Artist (Thailand) is not necessarily wrong and matching it was supported by all, I think]). My suggestion is also not that common atm (four cats), but that is because almost all category names for this kind of honor use the plural (here's another similar title: Category:Hero (title); same for Category:Honorary titles of the United Kingdom, Category:Honorary titles of Russia or Category:Honorary titles of the Holy See), and afaics, "Recipients of the title of..." is the most common (and only non-plural) alternative (and "Recipients of ..." seems to be common for other official state honors). Given the implications for quite a few categories and since our current direction here goes so clearly against the overwhelming majority of names, this honorary-titles-JOBTITLES-plural-capitalization issue probably should be discussed under wider participation to settle it (especially since a good portion of those plural names is currently wrong and should be corrected anyway, no matter what the correct form is), right? Felida97 (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Felida97's latest comment (suggesting Category:Recipients of the title of National Artist (Thailand))?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Latvian people from the Russian Empire

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 14#Category:Latvian people from the Russian Empire

Category:WikiProject Baronage of Scotland 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: speedy delete by Pppery per WP:C4. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure what to do about this category. There isn't an actual WikiProject Baronage of Scotland, it just exists on the user page of a relatively new editor (see User:Daniel Plumber/sandbox/WikiProject Baronage of Scotland). They are very enthusiastic but I'm not sure about tagging articles for such an ill-formed WikiProject. There has also been some discussion that there is a lot of COI editing going on with these articles but I guess the concern here is whether or not there is justification for this category. I'll also mention that Template:WikiProject Baronage of Scotland is up for a TFD discussion at the same time. Liz Read! Talk! 02:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This will be an empty category soon as the template is being deleted. Gonnym (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional mammoths

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 14#Category:Fictional mammoths

Category:American Roman Catholic bishops by contiguous area 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: delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Vague and non-defining. This category name sounds more like a container category, but the contents are individual bishops. Mason (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus favors a merge. To which targets?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Films set in summer camps

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 14#Category:Films set in summer camps

Category:British male tennis 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: No consensus There seems to be more agreement to go in the other direction and merge English -> British etc, which has gone unopposed. But those weren't tagged here, and would be neater to handle as a fresh nomination rather than relisting this already messy discussion. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm bringing this to CFD because @Crowsus: has requested it. I see no reason why this category should be the non-diffusing parent per WP:DIFFUSE. @Zyxw: made it so in 2020 [1] without any discussion I can find. Mason (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I would also ask that whatever outcome is reached here be considered to be applied to other groupings of British sportspeople, particularly Swimmers, Cyclists and Athletes (and obviously the subcategories thereof, where created) which have also had this non-diffusing header added. I have already recently gone through these and 'doubled' them for all articles where I can discern which part of the UK they were from, so if it is agreed that they should be removed from British if the home nation is known, the only remainders in the British parent should be the sparsely-sourced stubs or other unusual circumstances of each person. I did ask somewhere (can't remember where, trying to find it) for an explanation on why that non-diffusing thing had been chosen 9and was it a community consensus, but IIRC it was a project without a lot of interaction and nobody replied. Crowsus (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found my attempt to draw attention to the issue: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports/Archive 12#Category:British sportspeople by sport: why non-diffusing? (Jan 2023, ignored entirely)... Crowsus (talk) 06:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think generalizing to the rest is totally reasonable. And I think that no one chimed in advocating for it to be kept is at least some implicit information that no one felt strongly about non-diffusing Mason (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diffuse, there is no reason to deviate from the default. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused here. There pretty much is no such thing as English tennis players. They are always referred to as British tennis players, whether professionally or at the Olympics. It would be like removing US tennis players and instead inserting Californian tennis players. And it looks like someone did the same with the Olympics... there are no Scottish Olympic competitors.... they are British. And the category tells us as much: "Players who only ever represented Great Britain as a single entity (for example, in tennis at the Olympic Games) are listed under this category only." Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case the English subcategory should be merged to British. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So in other words completely changing your mind, and presumably throwing 343 English male tennis players back into the Sportsmen parent? Doesn't seem useful to me. At least the double category sorts that while reflecting that they are generally known as British within the sport globally. Crowsus (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Crowsus: I am not at all changing my mind: the articles should be either in an English/Scottish or a British category but not in both. When Fyunck argues that British is better than English I say to them, fine, in that case English is redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the "Players who only ever represented Great Britain as a single entity (for example, in tennis at the Olympic Games) are listed under this category only" was added by @Zyxw: at the same time as the non-diffusing tag, even though they are essentially contradictory: if there is a category for Scottish male players - which existed for 8 years before the changes were added, by the way - then obviously male players from Scotland are going to be added to it as that is a completely valid descriptor for their origin,regardless of a unilateral 'rule' over representation. The double cat is therefore an imperfect but reasonable compromise. Crowsus (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My biggest concern would be that editors will see "Scottish male tennis player" and remove the name from "British male tennis player" using diffusion... and that would be WRONG. They are first and foremost British tennis players both in professional tennis and the Olympics. They register as such with the governing bodies of tennis, are part of professional national teams, and as part of Olympics teams. They are not referred to as English, Scottish, or Welsh in tennis (other sports like FIFA World Cup are different). If you want to double-up and categorize these bios as both Scottish and British, or Californian and US, there will be lots of duplicates in both categories, but I can live with it. But removal of British and US categories in player bios I am 100% against. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't object to the home nations being upmerged so they are not on the same level as the primary British tree and can be included without being a straight duplicate: eg both Jamie Murray and Andy Murray would show as in British male tennis players, Scottish sportsmen and Scottish tennis players [ungendered but regardless of representation - there are other categories covering that]. Scottish male tennis players etc therefore redundant, so redirect to British male tennis players. Crowsus (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a reasonable request. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So the challenge is that "British male tennis player" is describing the nationality, not describing who they play for. If I'm understanding correctly, that your concern is that in these cases British is means that they played for Britain. There's also a tree for who folks represent in sport, which is different. SMasonGarrison 22:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something that's kind of strange. I notice that @Crowsus: just added Jamie Murray to the category "Scottish Olympic medallists." Scotland is not a nation and has no Olympic medallists. Great Britain does have Olympic medallists. Does this mean I can start adding "Californian Olympic medalists?" Or even "Angeleno Olympic medalists?" I find this very confusing. If anything it should be "Olympic medallists from Scotland", but even that seems out of place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, check again, i added him to Scottish Olympic competitors which I didn't create and is obviously underpopulated, although it has existed since 2011. Feel free to nominate that category (and/or the medalists one) separately, but it has little to do with this discussion. Crowsus (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category:British female tennis players was not tagged; I will do so. I will note that this is not a discussion about the subcategories; a merge discussion can be initiated separately.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Worms (obsolete taxon)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 14#Category:Worms (obsolete taxon)

Category:Sacramental theologians

[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 22:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: unhelpful for navigation with only 1 person in each category. SMasonGarrison 02:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete, the first category contains someone who was not occupied as a theologian. The second category results in a POV issue, it is about an Eastern Orthodox concept while the theologian in the category lived long before the split between Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Santiago, Chile

[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. The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article is Santiago but this is a very common name for places in Latin America. About half of the subcategories include Chile and half do not. Personally, I'd rather use Santiago, Chile for all but more than anything, I'd like uniformity. Thoughts? User:Namiba 15:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sportspeople categories are like this one, Category:Boxers from Santiago. I know, since I created it from entries in Category:Sportspeople from Santiago. There are lots of Londons, but the category for is Category:London.Lost in Quebec (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the categories are a mix and include both the shorter and longer names.--User:Namiba 15:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 00:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And rename the child categories. JuniperChill's argument doesn't really make sense here because there are so many Santiago SMasonGarrison 02:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_November_5&oldid=1286305731"