Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 12: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 1,250: Line 1,250:
::::* '''Approve of Mercy11’s proposal above'''. Also approve eliminating the root tree [[:Category:Categories by state or territory of the United States]] which is the main source of this unnecessary confusion. [[User:Yarfpr|Yarfpr]] ([[User talk:Yarfpr|talk]]) 00:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
::::* '''Approve of Mercy11’s proposal above'''. Also approve eliminating the root tree [[:Category:Categories by state or territory of the United States]] which is the main source of this unnecessary confusion. [[User:Yarfpr|Yarfpr]] ([[User talk:Yarfpr|talk]]) 00:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
::::*:'''Oppose removal.''' This suggestion serves to exclude many people from territories from a ton of categories, where it the state/territory is just there for diffusion. [[User:Smasongarrison|Mason]] ([[User talk:Smasongarrison|talk]]) 21:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
::::*:'''Oppose removal.''' This suggestion serves to exclude many people from territories from a ton of categories, where it the state/territory is just there for diffusion. [[User:Smasongarrison|Mason]] ([[User talk:Smasongarrison|talk]]) 21:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
::::*::I am not sure I understand this comment. Naming a handful of such "ton of categories" might help. Comment appears contradictory. [[User:Mercy11|Mercy11]] ([[User talk:Mercy11|talk]]) 16:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
*'''Opposed and proposal.''' There is nothing in common between the U.S. states and the U.S. territories to warrant placing them in the same category; categorizing the territories with the states erroneously implies there is. For example, unlike the states, the territories are not '''in''' the United States, nor are they '''a part of''' the United States, nor do they have the same constitutional rights as the states. btw, these 3 aren't an exhaustive list.
*'''Opposed and proposal.''' There is nothing in common between the U.S. states and the U.S. territories to warrant placing them in the same category; categorizing the territories with the states erroneously implies there is. For example, unlike the states, the territories are not '''in''' the United States, nor are they '''a part of''' the United States, nor do they have the same constitutional rights as the states. btw, these 3 aren't an exhaustive list.
:Since WP's founding decades ago WP editors have recognized this distinction, which is why we have used separate tree roots for the US states (Category:Categories by state of the United States) and for the US territories (Category:Insular areas of the United States): they have nothing in common.
:Since WP's founding decades ago WP editors have recognized this distinction, which is why we have used separate tree roots for the US states (Category:Categories by state of the United States) and for the US territories (Category:Insular areas of the United States): they have nothing in common.

Revision as of 16:21, 21 January 2024

< January 11
January 13 >

January 12

Category:FOO women executed for witchcraft

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 20#Category:FOO women executed for witchcraft

Category:Fictional werewolf hunters

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 monster hunters. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one person in this category solely hunts werewolves, suffice it to say it's so tiny as to be an unnecessary WP:NARROWCAT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose AHI-3000 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. There's no reason to distinguish by type of monster hunted given the size of the category. If the population grows, then it can be recreated. Mason (talk) 22:56, 12 January 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 zombie hunters

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 20#Category:Fictional zombie hunters

Category:Fictional alien hunters

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 20#Category:Fictional alien hunters

Category:Fictional occult and psychic detectives

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 paranormal investigators. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There seems to be a pretty large WP:OVERLAPCAT here. Two separate categories on the same thing isn't necessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support AHI-3000 (talk) 22:25, 12 January 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 characters who break the fourth wall

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 20#Category:Fictional characters who break the fourth wall

Category:Ion Dragoumis

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's only a page and a template in here, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 19:54, 12 January 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:Greek journalists by century

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) Mason (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This only has one category in it, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Giovanni 0331:. I'm going to close this nomination, now that you've made two other categories. However, please populate them so that they have more than a handful of people in them.Mason (talk) 20:32, 12 January 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:1901–02 NCAA football bowl games

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:1901 college football season. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one page in this category. Let'srun (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is an accepted consensus that all years with a bowl game should have an individual category for the bowl games. I do not understand why this year should be the only exception out of 100+. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NCAA wasn't established until 1906 so the name itself is anachronistic and needs to be changed.--User:Namiba 17:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea. Rename Category:College football bowls prior to 1939 and merge the others into it.--User:Namiba 15:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though, what's special about 1939? Why is that the best cutoff? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair question. Perhaps we would better off by decade? Category:College football bowls in the 1910s and so on?--User:Namiba 18:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seawolf35 T--C 17:13, 12 January 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:Unassessed vital articles by level

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All vital articles should be assessed so it is useful to have Category:Unassessed vital articles to track these. However it is unnecessary and excessive to divide them into levels and topics. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have tagged the subcategories.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:01, 12 January 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:Level-unknown vital articles by quality

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All vital articles should have an assigned level so it is useful to have Category:Wikipedia level-unknown vital articles to track these. However it is unnecessary and excessive to divide them by quality and topic — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've tagged the suncategories.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:58, 12 January 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:Photographic history books

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:Books of photographs. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge for now, having only 2 articles in the category is not helpful for navigation. No objection to recreate the category when more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Agree with nom. 21:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbl62 (talk • contribs)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Vital articles in an unknown topic by quality

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All vital articles should have a topic so it is useful to have Category:Wikipedia vital articles in an unknown topic to track these. However it is unnecessary and excessive to divide them by quality and topic — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've tagged all the subcategories.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:53, 12 January 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 characters with physical and congenital disorders

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge this category. There isn't a need to divide disabilities by physical and mental. Mason (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Fictional characters with physical disorders instead, to provide a clear and distinct counterpart to Category:Fictional characters with mental disorders. AHI-3000 (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:School buildings in Oregon

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer with one sub-category. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a whole tree under Category:School buildings that would need to be addressed. Buildings are different than institutions.--User:Namiba 23:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - So the nominator oringally empties the category, tries to speedy delete it, then now wants to merge it after creating the "University and college buildings in Oregon" category? Which that would be a subcategory of this category. And as the university one demonstrates, not all buildings should be in schools, otherwise the uni/college building category the nominator just created would also be redundant. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Universities and colleges are not schools. They are both educational institutions and would both belong in the educational buildings category. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Universities and colleges are not schools. Spent three years in law school ... they told me it was a school! Should I sue them for fraud? Cbl62 (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Per nom. In practice these are the same things since university buildings are not under schools. (I share Cbl62's confusion as to what that is the case but that broader discussion is for another time.) The NRHP listings generally focus on the building architecture rather than the education that went on there. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:29, 15 January 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:Vegetation of New Zealand

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories Mason (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:38, 12 January 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:Vegetation of Australia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories. If kept it needs to be renamed to make it clearer that these are distinct. The category page includes the following description. "This category is for vegetation communities and types that occur in Australia, such as mallee and mulga. For individual plant taxa, see Category:Flora of Australia" Mason (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The wording of the nomination itself is a give away by the way it has been created - however, in one point they are separate and not overlapping. There are distinct purposes for the separation. JarrahTree 02:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Flora typically means the plants themselves and should consist of taxon names (& common names for plant taxa). Vegetation typically refers to types of vegetation and as can be seen from the category include mallee lands, vegetation communities and so on which are Australian. The distinction should be kept, even though not all contributors understand it. MargaretRDonald (talk) 05:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:38, 12 January 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:Montenegrin Malacologists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Closing discussion in order to instead propose merge to Category:Malacologists along with other related single-page categories. (non-admin closure) Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "malacologists" should not start with a capital letter in this category name. Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per C2A. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03 Ah whoops, I forgot about that speedy rename criteria, thanks. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:33, 12 January 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.

Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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/delete. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands only existed within one century. Merge/delete per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 15#Category:Establishments in Gran Colombia by century. Manually merge parent categories for C20 onto target cats. – Fayenatic London 17:02, 12 January 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.

20th century in the Trucial States

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge/delete as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trucial States only existed within one century. Merge/delete per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 15#Category:Establishments in Gran Colombia by century. Manually merge parent categories for C20 onto target cats. – Fayenatic London 16:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 19:43, 12 January 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:Concept- and mind-mapping software

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 on Category:Concept- and mind-mapping software programmed in Java (with no prejudice against speedy renomination); dual merge the others as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:30, 12 January 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:Chicago Dental Infirmary football

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one subcategory. Let'srun (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. This should be upmerged to Loyola Ramblers football Mason (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? - see below argument. We always have categories for different college teams - this seems to have been different than Loyola? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Neutral on the seasons subcat nomination but this layer doesn't aid navigation regardless. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:26, 12 January 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:Chicago Dental Infirmary football seasons

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article in this category Let'srun (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. This should be upmerged to Loyola Ramblers football seasons Mason (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? - generally we keep all categories for different college football seasons, even when there is just one article. Chicago Dental Infirmary seems to have been a different team than Loyola? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:26, 12 January 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.

Empty babel categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete all (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting:
And ~100 other categories
Nomiantor's rationale: These are not the sort of categories that should be kept despite being empty. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not sure why these categories exist. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:29, 12 January 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.

Roman Catholic cathedrals in Curaçao

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 20#Roman Catholic cathedrals in Curaçao

People by occupation and city or town

Nominator's rationale: rename per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_1#People_by_populated_place_in_the_United_States: 1) using denonym per WP:C2C; 2) using "populated place" instead of "city or town" per recent discussions; 3) having the splitter at the end of the category name, per convention.
copy of speedy discussion regarding the first four
copy of speedy discussion regarding the fifth
@Aidan721, Smasongarrison, and Paul 012: pinging contributors to speedy discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sibling categories

State or territory

  • Propose renaming:
Remaining categories from speedy
Copy of speedy discussions (only replies)

First discussion

It's clear from the discussion at that page (WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 2 § Category:American suffragists by state) that "territory" is being used in an ambiguous way: it could mean the historical Territories but could also mean the current Unincorporated territories (plus, perhaps more confusing yet, it could mean both). This can be a source of serious confusion and of constant mis-subcategorization as 3 groups of editors (perhaps more groups if we consider the combinations of those 3 groups) could emerge. The discussion at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 2 § Category:American suffragists by state alludes to a historical Territory, the Territory of Wyoming, while, IMO, most editors will think of any US-rooted category named "by state or territory" to mean the "50 states & DC" OR "the CURRENT unincorporated territories of the US". Mercy11 (talk) 07:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion you cite as precedent clearly concluded for consensus to rename to Category:American suffragists by state or territory, which is the opposite of what you say. Place Clichy (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aidan721@Place Clichy I think that we're going to have to take these to full to reassert this consensus. Mason (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second discussion

Third discussion

Nominator's rationale: Moved from Speedy to full Cfd. This matter needs to be settled becasue a lot of categories are dependant on this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have an opinion, but just want to mention that some categories have been speedy processed (this happened before first objections were raised). I do not have a list of those, but it probably can be taken from the page histories. If the outcome of this discussion is oppose or no consensus, those categories must be moved back. Ymblanter (talk) 10:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the alt rename from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_1#People_by_populated_place_in_the_United_States would be included as part of any change here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding participants from the intial Cfd on this name change: @Fayenatic london and @Peterkingiron. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The general rule on Wikipedia is that "of" is used for things occurring naturally, such as rivers and mountains, and "in" for human-made/cultural things such as roads and buildings. As such, I'd oppose Eloquent Peasant's suggestions. Grutness...wha? 03:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Why the use of "of" or "in" is important here:
Search for any of the 50 US states and the Encyclopedia Britannica refers to them as "constituent states of the US" https://www.britannica.com/place/Virginia-state Search for any of the US territories and the EB states they are "associated with", or "unincorporated territories of". Constituent means part of.
Please refer to an example here: The US Census indicates that this map is "...of the United States and Puerto Rico." https://www.loc.gov/item/2004628731/ that is because PR is "associated with the US" https://www.britannica.com/place/Puerto-Rico and not "in" it.
Would we want to then / need to update US school curriculums and have the world over update US maps to show that the territories are "in" the US?? That is what WP would be trying to accomplish with this category move request. If we reword the categories to say "in the United States by state or territory", as a group we'd be perpetuating a lie, mistake, or ignorance. Prepositions are important. The 50 states and DC are in the US, the territories are "subject to", "associated with", in "free association with", "unincorporated territories of". Yes "of". "of" doesn't only need to be used for rivers. Just like the powerful comma changes the entire meaning of a statement, here the word "of" or "in" needs to be correct. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree here. "of" gives the sense of ownership in this context. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely why it makes sense to block the category being proposed in this discussion, "Category:Categories by state or territory of the United States", and need to continue building instead on "Category:Insular areas of the United States", because the Insular areas are owned by the US but the states aren't. The states already had their own category since 2004, namely, "Category:Categories by state of the United States". Mercy11 (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, prepositions can make a difference. However, prepositions alone will not solve the fundamental problem triggered by the proposed Moves from Foo IN the United States by state -----TO----> Foo IN the United States by state or territory. The fundamental problem is that the move introduces an assumption that is false: that the territories are part of the United States. So, whether the move is from "Foo IN the United States by state" or from "Foo OF the United States by state" and into "Foo IN the United States by state or territory" AND/OR "Foo OF the United States by state or territory", it makes no difference because the problem is conflating those 2 in the same root category, i.e., the problem is in adding "territories" to the category tail.
For example, "Category:Hot springs of the United States by state" is fine because the states are a constituent part of the United States, but "Category:Hot springs of the United States by state or territory" would not be because the territories aren't a constituent part of the United States, therefore Hot Springs whether IN or OF the United States would not include hot springs in the territories because hot springs of the United States cannot possibly include any hot springs in the territories because the territories aren't part of the United States. Another example, "Category:Military installations of the United States in Puerto Rico" is fine as is "Category:United States Army officers" (would contain Puerto Ricans like Pedro Albizu Campos) and "Category:Democratic Party members of the United States House of Representatives" (would contain Puerto Ricans like Santiago Iglesias). "Category:Foo on the National Register of Historic Places by state" is fine as would "Category:National Register of Historic Places by insular areas of the United States" because NRHP sites in the territories are located in insular areas of the US, not in the US proper. By the same token, "Category:Foo on the National Register of Historic Places by state or territory" would not be correct because it would needlessly duplicate the NRHP in the insular areas. Mercy11 (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • support with caveat those in the OP and moved from the speedies. I am concerned about changing the "Buildings and structures in the United States by condition by state" to "...by condition and state or territory", though. Firstly, I don't think that's the normsl naming on WP, and second, "condition and state" is confusing given the different meanings of "state". I'd mane that "Buildings and structures in the United States by condition by state or territory" Grutness...wha? 04:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think the categories of the form "American fooers by state or territory" are unopposed and there appears to be some mixed opinions/ideas for how to handle the remaining categories (i.e. Foo in the United States by state or territory). –Aidan721 (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also any of the "Foo on the National Register of Historic Places by state or territory" seem fully supported as well. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aidan721, just for clarification - because one user here is strongly against Washington, D.C. being a part of "state or territory" categories - D.C. WILL be included if the change is in favor of "state or territory", correct? Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is what I would advocate for. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite. Those two categories, "American fooers...by state or territory" and "Foo on the NRHP...by state or territory" (as well as "Category: People by populated place in the United States" where the territories are assumed to be part of the US, when they aren't), are all intertwined with the parent discussion on the root category "Category:Categories by state or territory of the United States" because they all stem from the same faulty premise that "since the territories are in the US, appending 'or territory' to those categories won't hurt anything". But the territories (and its residents) cannot be piggybacked to the categories on states because they aren't states, aren't part of the US, and aren't in the US. Mercy11 (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and proposal. Regarding "I think the categories of the form 'American fooers by state or territory' are unopposed", we don't lump residents of the territories with those of the United States because the territories aren't part of the US, so their residents couldn't possibly be Americans. Manifestations of this are seen in many common instances in real life; for example, the US Census Bureau in its population of the US, doesn't include the populations in the territories. Another example, it would be an error for people born in the unincorporated territory of, for example, Puerto Rico (examples Antonio Correa Cotto, Filiberto Ojeda Rios, and Isabel la Negra) to be included in "American fooers by state or territory" because merely being a resident of one of the territories doesn't automatically make the person an American, which is the implication of the category title "American fooers by state or territory", that people in the territories are Americans. This is why we have categories for residents of the insular areas (e.g., Category:Mayors of places in insular areas of the United States).
I propose the "or territory" in the category root "American fooers by state or territory" be removed and become simply "American fooers by state", so the residents of the insular areas can continue to categorize under "Category:Foo in insular areas of the United States" without duplication under the "by state or territory" root category. Mercy11 (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would advocate for this and this could work with the existing top level "Category:Political divisions of the United States". We should continue to develop the existing category, "Category:Foo in insular areas of the United States". Could the issue with Washington DC be solved by having "Category:Foo in the US by state or Washington, DC"? Then would also have "Category:Foo in the US by tribal lands". That way we would move down the tree via the "Category:Political divisions of the US.", without conflating different political divisions of the US.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed and proposal. There is nothing in common between the U.S. states and the U.S. territories to warrant placing them in the same category; categorizing the territories with the states erroneously implies there is. For example, unlike the states, the territories are not in the United States, nor are they a part of the United States, nor do they have the same constitutional rights as the states. btw, these 3 aren't an exhaustive list.
Since WP's founding decades ago WP editors have recognized this distinction, which is why we have used separate tree roots for the US states (Category:Categories by state of the United States) and for the US territories (Category:Insular areas of the United States): they have nothing in common.
Additionally, expanding "Category:Foo in (or, OF) the United States by state", into "Category:Foo in the United States by state or territory" would make the existence of "Category:Insular areas of the United States" unnecessary because it will no longer be needed if all its groups were already categorized under the proposed "Category:Foo in the United States by state or territory". Thus, a vote in support of Category:Foo in the US by state or territory is a vote to eliminate the root "Category:Insular areas of the United States". Is that really what we want?
Additionally yet, the proposed "Category:Foo in the United States by state or territory" is a bad option in that it can be confusing as Territories of the United States can also refer to those that would include places like the Wyoming Territory, but not places like Puerto Rico.
Keeping "Category:Categories by state of the United States" as it currently exists (i.e., without subcategories such as "Category:Foo in the United States by state or territory") represents the correct political and geographical reality as it exists today. Statehooders have oftentimes attempted to push their political agenda via WP by making seemingly insignificant tweaks to WP like this one. We should keep such POVs out of WP by eliminating all categories of the type "Foo in the United States by state or territory" because a territory becomes a state when Congress says so, not when statehooders try to pass them as such in WP. Recategorizing that entire root category to also include territories implies the territories and states are somehow linked, which is not factual. The 2 tree roots "Category:Categories by state of the United States" and "Category:Insular areas of the United States" already successfully categorize groups related to United State and its possessions while also keeping political overtones out of the categories.
I propose the request for the Category Moves not only be disallowed but, also, that the (recently created) entire branch Category:Categories by state or territory of the United States be eliminated altogether. Mercy11 (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Categories by state or territory of the United States dates to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_13#United_States_locations, which I would not call recent. I for one do not see the consensus Timrollpickering saw in that discussion. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The category "Insular areas of the US" (DOB 2004) is almost 20 years old while the one proposed in this discussion, "Foo in the US by state or territory" (DOB 2019), is only a bit more than 4. Mercy11 (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American/British rock/hip hop genres categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge as nominated. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
Such division by country of origin is of no practical use, and it only creates difficulties with categorisation, which will never be correct in this environment.
Firstly, most of the genres are duplicated in two categories, because many genres have both US and UK country of origin in their infoboxes at the same time. The practical sense of this division is lost in 60% of cases for rock categories, and in some cases for hip-hop. I personally don't see any practical convenience in constantly switching between these two categories in an attempt to figure out which genres are truly exclusively British.
Secondly, genres often have roots in other countries besides the US and UK, but there are no categories for this and will not be, but they will be placed in these two categories rather than in the general category (e.g. Reggae rock). And it's unclear whether or not such genres should be placed in those categories and such situations.
Thirdly, in a situation when there are major genres with their own sub-genres and globalisation is a thing, such a hierarchy cannot be correctly arranged by country of origin. You put a major genre in one category, and it has its own nested categories for subgenres that were created all over the world. For example, Category:Heavy metal genres is now located only in "American rock music genres" and "British rock music genres", while it has a huge number of sub-genres created in individual European countries. And it turns out that the categorisation tells you that Celtic metal is an American and British genre.
So I suggest remove the categories and move their content to Category:Hip hop genres and Category:Rock music genres respectively. Solidest (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. For American hip hop I created Category:American hip hop scenes a few years ago, which is both much more specific and would avoid all the problems described above. Solidest (talk) 08:29, 12 January 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:17th-century Franco-Flemish composers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:16th-century Franco-Flemish composers. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the Franco-Flemish School flourished from about 1430 to 1620 so very little in the 17th century, and all articles of this category belong in the 16th century too. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 12 January 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:Death in Italy by place

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:Death in Italy. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. It's unhelpful for navigation to have two cities tucked away from the parent category. If kept, it should be renamed to "by location" or "by city" Mason (talk) 05:54, 12 January 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 executed by explosive device

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:Deaths by explosive device. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Extremely small category. Upmerge for now. Mason (talk) 05:10, 12 January 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:Historical research institutes

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:History institutes. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These appear to refer to the same type of research institutes. Logan Talk Contributions 00:48, 12 January 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_January_12&oldid=1197702457"