Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 20
January 20
Roman Catholic cathedrals in Curaçao
- Propose merging Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Curaçao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Roman Catholic churches in Curaçao, and
Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in the Dutch CaribbeanCategory:Roman Catholic cathedrals in the Caribbean (edited 18:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)) - Propose deleting Category:Cathedrals in Curaçao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose merging Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Curaçao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Roman Catholic churches in Curaçao, and
- Nominator's rationale: Narrow intersection of just one article. Merge for now. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom or, probably even better, skip a layer and merge directly to Category:Roman Catholic churches in Curaçao and Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in the Caribbean. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge as initially nominated. Do not merge to Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in the Caribbean as that would remove other eligible parents such as Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in the Netherlands. Place Clichy (talk) 09:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- In contrast to e.g. Bonaire, Curaçao is not in the Netherlands proper, it is a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands which in turn isn't a country but rather resembles a commonwealth. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hence it is pertinent to have a Dutch Caribbean level (in which Curaçao content undeniably belongs) rather than placing Curaçao directly in the Netherlands category. In the absence of such a level, Curaçao content would still belong in a Netherlands category, as for any dependent territory. Place Clichy (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- In contrast to e.g. Bonaire, Curaçao is not in the Netherlands proper, it is a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands which in turn isn't a country but rather resembles a commonwealth. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Place Clichy: I do not agree that we should have a category tree for Dutch Caribbean as if it were a country. It is in fact a set of three plus three islands with a completely incompatible political status. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Place Clichy: I'm going to agree with Marcocapelle here. The Dutch Caribbean tree is not very useful (in this context) and is technically misclassified as it would belong in a "Kingdom of the Netherlands" category but not in the current Netherlands category. This image is helpful for seeing this structure. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per Marco. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 23:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Fictional parasites and parasitoids
- Propose renaming Category:Fictional parasites and parasitoids to Category:Fictional parasite characters
- Nominator's rationale: This category was being confused for being a species category rather than one about individual characters who are parasites. There could be a complementary Category:Fictional parasitic species and races category, but I'm not sure there are enough of them to justify it. Either way, the species should be purged and recategorized to Category:Fictional species and races. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Alternate rename to Category:Fictional parasites. There's no reason why this should be restricted only to individual characters, especially because parasites/parasitoids are biological terms applied to various species of animals, creatures and organisms. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Split to characters and species, per nom and in the spirit of WP:COPSEP. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Rename per nom I don't see any real distinction here. Parasitoids are parasites who eventually kill their host. Their strategy is different to other parasites, but they are still parasites. Dimadick (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 23:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)- Rename per nom, but also split out the species to Category:Fictional parasites, parallelling Category:Fictional plants. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Impractical sorting algorithms
- Propose renaming Category:Impractical sorting algorithms to Category:Humorous sorting algorithms
- Nominator's rationale: Less subjective. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I thought "impractical" is less subjective, as humor is typically very subjective.
- I got the idea for the category, when I watched this youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktgxMtWMflU
- The video uses the word "impractical" multiple times, and also in the description: "In this video, I explored the realm of impractical sorting algorithms. Say goodbye to the usual and practical methods..."
- Though, if the community prefers renaming, I don't mind. Marjeta42 (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Only the second article mentions humor prominently. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Move Slowsort to Category:Sorting algorithms (the other two articles are already in Category:Comparison sorts), then delete this category. This will remove all subjectivity. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 23:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Pppery: what do you think of the alternative? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- I guess it's fine with me. I removed Bogosort and Slowsort from Category:Computer humor because this was a subcat of that earlier, so you may want to consider re-evaluating whether those belong there, although I guess you're write that Bogosort doesn't technically mention being a joke despite clearly being one. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Sportswriters
- Propose merging Category:American male sportswriters to Category:American sportswriters
- Propose merging Category:American martial arts writers to Category:Martial arts writers
- Propose merging Category:Australian cricket writers to Category:Cricket historians and writers and Category:Australian sportswriters
- Propose renaming Category:Cricket historians and writers to Category:Cricket writers
- Propose renaming Category:Gaelic games writers and broadcasters to Category:Gaelic games writers
- Propose renaming Category:Lists of golf writers and broadcasters to Category:Lists of golf commentators (all the lists are of commentators/broadcasters)
- Propose splitting Category:Golf writers and broadcasters to Category:Golf writers and Category:Golf commentators
- Nominator's rationale: WP:EGRS. The first one is the only sportswriter category sorted by male. For the sport and country specific, these are the only ones like it (only chess in split by country, not the rest). The Gaelic games category has a commentator/broadcaster category already (Category:Gaelic games commentators) so the name is redundant. And for the last one: the golf category is large with a mix of writers and commentators that makes navigation hard. The combination is only done when there are not enough of either to warrant seperate categories. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support in principle. However, I think that all of the intersection categories need to be merged as well.
- Category:American martial arts writers would need to be merged to Category:Martial arts writers and Category:American sportswriters,
- Category:American male sportswriters to Category:American sportswriters and Category:American male writers;
- Category:Australian cricket writers to Category:Australian sportswriters and Category:Cricket writers.
- Mason (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Smasongarrison, American male sportswriters are already in subcats of Category:American male writers which is why I didn't add that. Same is the case with Martial artists (I spent a lot of time in the American sportswriters category so I'm sure). Australian one I'm not about though so I will add the second one. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Great! I suspected you'd already checked :) Mason (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Smasongarrison, American male sportswriters are already in subcats of Category:American male writers which is why I didn't add that. Same is the case with Martial artists (I spent a lot of time in the American sportswriters category so I'm sure). Australian one I'm not about though so I will add the second one. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support in principle. However, I think that all of the intersection categories need to be merged as well.
- Delete Category:American male sportswriters per WP:OCEGRS,
do not merge because the articles are already in Category:American sportswriters by state.Other than that I am neutral. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)- @Marcocapelle, not all of them are. Quite a lot don't show any state origin/birth place. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- How about Merge for now and then manually resorting them to states? The ones that don't can remain in the parent cat. I'll do it myself (after/if this Cfd closes as merge and so on). Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- That is (procedurally) perfectly fine. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 23:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)- @Marcocapelle, I think you agreed with the nomination as is, correct? Asking just to clarify our above discussion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking, no, I just have an opinion about male sportwriters. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle, thank you for clarifying! Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'll sort them out soon and leave only the ones who don't have enough info to sort them into states. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking, no, I just have an opinion about male sportwriters. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle, I think you agreed with the nomination as is, correct? Asking just to clarify our above discussion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Keep as is, they seem fine and descriptiveSupport upon below comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)- @Randy Kryn, over categorization, especially the Category:American male sportswriters since men make up majority of sportswriters. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Also, I don't see how mashing broadcasters and writers into one category makes navigation easier since they do completely different jobs. Broadcastsers should be in the "sports annoucners" category. And renames are to make categories consistant with names of others as well. For example "Cricket historians and writers" in the category are just writers like "Baseball writers" and "Tennis writers" are. And Gailic games broadcasters have a seperate category so there's no need to have one for "broadcasters and writers" combination. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn, over categorization, especially the Category:American male sportswriters since men make up majority of sportswriters. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Secularists
- Propose manually merging Category:Secularists to Category:Critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Arab secularists to Category:Arab critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Afghan secularists to Category:Afghan critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Algerian secularists to Category:Algerian critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:American secularists to Category:American critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Bangladeshi secularists to Category:Bangladeshi critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina secularists to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:British secularists to Category:British critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Canadian secularists to Category:Canadian critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Dutch secularists to Category:Dutch critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Egyptian secularists to Category:Egyptian critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Filipino secularists to Category:Filipino critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:French secularists to Category:French critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Indian secularists to Category:Indian critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Iranian secularists to Category:Iranian critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Iraqi secularists to Category:Iraqi critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Irish secularists to Category:Irish critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Israeli secularists to Category:Israeli critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Italian secularists to Category:Italian critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Kuwaiti secularists to Category:Kuwaiti critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Lebanese secularists to Category:Lebanese critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Luxembourgian secularists to Category:Luxembourgian critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Malaysian secularists to Category:Malaysian critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Mexican secularists to Category:Mexican critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Moroccan secularists to Category:Moroccan critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Pakistani secularists to Category:Pakistani critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Palestinian secularists to Category:Palestinian critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Polish secularists to Category:Polish critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Romanian secularists to Category:Romanian critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Spanish secularists to Category:Spanish critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Syrian secularists to Category:Syrian critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Tajikistani secularists to Category:Tajikistani critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Trinidad and Tobago secularists to Category:Trinidad and Tobago critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Tunisian secularists to Category:Tunisian critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Turkish secularists to Category:Turkish critics of religions
- Propose renaming Category:Ukrainian secularists to Category:Ukrainian critics of religions
- Nominator's rationale: merge the two trees, the difference between "secularists" and "critics of religions" is not clear enough to keep them as separate trees. Conceptually there is a difference, but when reading individual biographies it becomes very blurry. On the other hand, purge subcategories of politicians by political party, Category:Secular Jews and Category:Cultural Muslims. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom Mason (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- In principle I would like to keep the distinction between activists for a secularist society and critics against a specific religion, as one is far from implying the other. However, I see that in practice the categories seem to be used interchangeably, so I agree to merge for now, without prejudice against a later better-organized secularism hierrachy. @Marcocapelle: I suggest the following:
- Delete Category:Arab secularists, which is just a container for country-level categories, the nationals of which are not all Arabs (e.g. Egypt, Lebanon and Iraq)
- Purge child categories relative to members of secular political parties, as nominated. In some cases, this will empty the category, hence it is equivalent to:
- If successful, the national child categories of Critics of Christianity and Critics of Islam will need to be added to the new targets, which will in turn probably generate redundancy to purge. Place Clichy (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Plays about religion and science
- Propose renaming Category:Plays about religion and science to Category:Plays about religion
- Nominator's rationale: rename per actual category content. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom Mason (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Split into two categories. I don't think there are enough plays that intersect both science and religion to warrant a category; but some of these, such Inherit the Wind clearly are about both science and religion. I have therefore been bold and created Category:Plays about science and have populated the cat slightly. There are certainly more plays that could go into that category based on this list: https://www.librarything.com/list/712/all/Plays-about-science-and-scientists I support the creation of Category:Plays about religion. There are many plays that are about religion (a topic) but may not necessarily be "religious plays" (ie Category:Religious plays) which is a genre of play that would include religious works like Passion plays and other stage works written for religious use. The current cat should be sorted into these two cats; and when appropriate some plays may be in both categories. @Smasongarrison and Marcocapelle, what do you think?4meter4 (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Makes perfect sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Template:Draft-stub
- Nominator's rationale: This page appears to have been created in error, or as an experiment. I see no evidence of its creation being approved through the process described at WP:NEWSTUB. I may have missed a discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. It is in the nature of a draft that it is likely to be very unfinished, and there does not seem to be any good reason for having a template to label them as such. Also, as far as I am aware, all the existing information about stubs refers only to articles, and extending the concept to other namespaces requires more than just a single editor deciding to do so without consultation: a discussion to determine consensus would be more appropriate. JBW (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Fictional counterterrorism organizations
- Nominator's rationale: Only has two articles that aren't redirects, too small to be realistically needed as a subcategory. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not all counterterrorism organizations are military (e.g., CTU is not). Apokrif (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- I was thinking the redirects would just be removed unless they became an article. These categories are not redirect dumping grounds for every little mention of a fictional organization somewhere. If not they can be diffused accordingly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, if only because counter-terrorist organizations are not necessarily all military, some can be civilian law enforcement agencies instead. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not all counterterrorism organizations are military (e.g., CTU is not). Apokrif (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Disperse among the three fictional parent categories, per nom. That resolves the issue that not all counterterrorism organizations are military. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Fictional vampire types
- Propose merging Category:Fictional vampire types to Category:Fictional species and races
- Nominator's rationale: This is basically just a glorified DAB page in category form, and should probably be upmerged to this, and the relevant subcategories of Category:Vampires in popular culture. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Alt merge to Category:Fictional vampires instead. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Dual merge per nom. The alt merge would mix up characters and species, hence not a good idea. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Category does exactly what is says it's supposed to do and there is nothing wrong with it's purpose.★Trekker (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Bermudian civil engineers
- Propose renaming Category:Bermudian civil engineers to Category:Bermudian engineers
- Nominator's rationale: Broaden the scope as right now there isn't a main engineer category, and it will be some time before Bermuda can support diffusing engineers by specialization Mason (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Businesspeople in retailing by company
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which is unhelpfulf for navigation Mason (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Turkish taxi drivers
- Propose merging Category:Turkish taxi drivers (0) to Category:Taxi drivers
- Propose merging Category:Trinidad and Tobago taxi drivers (0) to Category:Taxi drivers
- Propose merging Category:South Korean taxi drivers (0) to Category:Taxi drivers
- Propose merging Category:Swedish taxi drivers (0) to Category:Taxi drivers and Category:Swedish people in transport
- Propose merging Category:Spanish taxi drivers (0) to Category:Taxi drivers
- Propose merging Category:South African taxi drivers (0) to Category:Taxi drivers
- Propose merging Category:Solomon Islands taxi drivers (0) to Category:Taxi drivers
- Propose merging Category:Portuguese taxi drivers (0) to Category:Taxi drivers
- Propose merging Category:Polish taxi drivers (0) to Category:Taxi drivers
- Propose merging Category:Nigerian taxi drivers (0) to Category:Taxi drivers
- Propose merging Category:Japanese taxi drivers (0) to Category:Taxi drivers and Category:Japanese people in transport
- Propose merging Category:Hong Kong taxi drivers (0) to Category:Taxi drivers
- Propose merging Category:Honduran taxi drivers (0) to Category:Taxi drivers
- Propose merging Category:Haitian taxi drivers (0) to Category:Taxi drivers
- Propose merging Category:Ethiopian taxi drivers (0) to Category:Taxi drivers
- Propose merging Category:Dutch taxi drivers (0) to Category:Taxi drivers
- Propose merging Category:Dominican Republic taxi drivers (0) to Category:Taxi drivers
- Propose merging Category:Danish taxi drivers (0) to Category:Taxi drivers
- Propose merging Category:Cuban taxi drivers (0) to Category:Taxi drivers
- Propose merging Category:Cambodian taxi drivers (0) to Category:Taxi drivers
- Propose merging Category:Burkinabé taxi drivers (0) to Category:Taxi drivers
- Propose merging Category:Bolivian taxi drivers (0) to Category:Taxi drivers
- Propose merging Category:Bermudian taxi drivers (0) to Category:Taxi drivers
- Propose merging Category:Belgian taxi drivers (0) to Category:Taxi drivers
- Propose merging Category:Argentine taxi drivers (0) to Category:Taxi drivers
- Propose merging Category:Afghan taxi drivers (0) to Category:Taxi drivers
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's less than 3 people in here Mason (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom, without objection to recreate any of these categories when more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge but agree to recreate when more articles are avalible for each. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge If they can be recreated later, I see no reason why they can't be removed for now. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge, I've never understood why some categories which contain one or two entries are broken up into states or cities or whatever. This just hides the entries in outlying cubbyholes to the main search term. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Fictional alien hunters
- Nominator's rationale: None of the characters in here would be typically defined as an "alien hunter" first and foremost. (i.e. Samus is simply a bounty hunter, for humans or aliens alike. Agent J and K are government agents). Nor is there an actual article on the topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose AHI-3000 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- If size would be an issue it would require upmerging to Category:Fictional monster hunters rather than deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Oppose AHI-3000 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would those advocating deletion be amenable to merging to Category:Fictional monster hunters, as Marco suggested?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, a good science-fiction category, seems it would be of interest to anyone who actually clicks on it. I'll probably look at it and click on a few (thanks to the category's creator, whomever that may be will give them a 'thanks'-button click). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Fictional zombie hunters
- Nominator's rationale: The nature of this category is somewhat flummoxing, as I don't know if any of the characters here could be called "zombie hunters". Usually, zombies are hunting THEM and they're trying to do some unrelated task that might stop the zombies somehow. The idea that someone might be a "zombie hunter" is not backed up by sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose AHI-3000 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- If size would be an issue it would require upmerging to Category:Fictional monster hunters rather than deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Oppose AHI-3000 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- There are quite a few video games characters among them who may actually hunt zombies. Maybe purge first? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, it's one thing to kill zombies as part of a job, it's another thing to hunt them. I'm not sure which of these specifically hunts individual zombies, but it's certainly not enough for a category. If necessary they can be moved to Category:Fictional monster hunters. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Strongest possible keep. Lots of entries to form a delightful and enriching category... and merging to "monster hunters"? Don't think zombies qualify as monsters, they're simply undead humans, typically exposed to a horrible virus ... as for the assertion that the "zombies" are hunting them", you clearly haven't met sensai Michonne or stryker crossbow virtuoso Daryl Dixon -- they be doing the hunting, Fo'Sho'). Cbl62 (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- History.com, at least, refers to zombies as monsters. Category:Zombies and revenants in popular culture is also categorized under Category:Fiction about monsters. Category:Zombies is also categorized under monsters. Even if there are a few legitimate zombie hunters there, it can easily be classified under the category of monster hunters. Still, given the fact that zombies tend to chase after any human around, "zombie slayer" strikes me as more accurate a description, as they hardly need to be hunted down. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: "Fictional zombie hunters" implies that there are counterpart zombie hunters in real life. Is that the case? --Paul_012 (talk) 07:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Fictional characters who break the fourth wall
- Nominator's rationale: If the category is not going to be deleted, the naming should at least be standardized with everything else in Category:Metafiction. This is my best guess as to what the name should be, but if anyone else has a better suggestion, let me know. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure if this is directly relevant to this current discussion, but apparently "Category:Metafictional characters" was deleted in the past. AHI-3000 (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- It is relevant, the category should be deleted per WP:G4 unless strong counter arguments come up now. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure if this is directly relevant to this current discussion, but apparently "Category:Metafictional characters" was deleted in the past. AHI-3000 (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Don't rename, "btfw" variations seems to be used way more commonly per news search results (up to ~39k results, around 31k on average, depending on the chosen term variation) then any variations on metafiction (~6 thousand) and even in those it rarely refers to the characters. Respublik (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as is, the name describes the category well, the proposed name would make little sense to most readers. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Taekwondo practitioners of insular areas of the United States
- Propose merging Category:Taekwondo practitioners of insular areas of the United States (1) to Category:American taekwondo practitioners
- Propose merging Category:Triathletes of insular areas of the United States (1) to Category:American triathletes
- Propose merging Category:Lugers of insular areas of the United States (2) to Category:American lugers
- Propose merging Category:Rowers of insular areas of the United States (1) to Category:American rowers
- Propose merging Category:Beach volleyball players of insular areas of the United States (2) to Category:American beach volleyball players
- Propose merging Category:Artistic gymnasts of insular areas of the United States (1) to Category:American artistic gymnasts
- Propose merging Category:Men's beach volleyball players of insular areas of the United States (1) to Category:American men's beach volleyball players
- Propose merging Category:Golfers of insular areas of the United States (2) to Category:American golfers
- Propose merging Category:Criminals from insular areas of the United States (1) to Category:American criminals by state or territory
- Propose merging Category:Farmers from insular areas of the United States (1) to Category:American farmers
- Propose merging Category:Inventors in insular areas of the United States (0) to Category:American inventors
- Propose merging Category:Taxi drivers of insular areas of the United States (0) to Category:American taxi drivers
- Propose merging Category:Family in insular areas of the United States (1) to Category:Family in the United States
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. For each of these categories, there's only one category in here, which is unhelpful for navigation. Please add more than one category when you make occupation categories for insular areas of the United States. I only think that we should have categories like this if there are more than two territories in them (aka 3 or more). Mason (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Opposed. This is not an issue of the number of subcategories, but whether or not the herein proposal results in a more realistic categorization scheme than the one there now, and it doesn't. The proposal doesn't result in a better cat scheme because the peoples of the insular areas aren't Americans. Categorizing them under Americans, when they aren't, is factually incorrect. Mercy11 (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Request: Please try to be constructive. @Mercy11: Spamming the same comment under each merge is extremely unhelpful. Mason (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Excuse me? Please assume good faith. I responded as I did because I do not know if each category is decided upon independent, so I made no assumption. The accusation of "spamming" is jumping to conclusion without having the facts and demonstrates an assumption of intentional spamming was made which is categorically wrong from any angle. Mercy11 (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- My apologies, I should have considered my words more carefully. I bundled the nominations because I had expected the debate to be centered around the size of the categories, which shouldn't differ by the content. Mason (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Excuse me? Please assume good faith. I responded as I did because I do not know if each category is decided upon independent, so I made no assumption. The accusation of "spamming" is jumping to conclusion without having the facts and demonstrates an assumption of intentional spamming was made which is categorically wrong from any angle. Mercy11 (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Insular territories belong to the United States, in the same fashion than the Michigan Territory or the Alaska Territory did before they reached statehood. There is a DEFINING link between these categories and their American parent, in which they should be whatever the outcome, either directly or indirectly. Place Clichy (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose on two counts. 1°) These nominations would remove content from the Category:Dependent territories/Category:People from dependent territories tree, where they belong. 2°) Many of these targets are American foo categories without a geographical diffusion, whereas this diffusion exists or should exist. The target should be a by state or territory category, or a by state category in the absence thereof. Place Clichy (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Opposed. Categorizing should be (1) “FOO in the US by state or DC” and (2) “FOO in Insular Areas of the United States”, which is a category that exists and works to collect all things in Insular Areas of the US. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Mercy11: Can you explain why categories such as Category:Taekwondo practitioners of insular areas of the United States shouldn't be merged to Category:American taekwondo practitioners? If Category:Puerto Rican taekwondo practitioners doesn't belong in Category:American taekwondo practitioners, then the first shouldn't be parented by the American category? I understand your arguments on some, but I don't see why those can't be upmerged. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- The answer to your question is already provided at the supporting explanation at my "Opposed" above, isn't it?, that the peoples of the insular areas aren't Americans. As members of an insular area, Puerto Ricans are, well, Puerto Ricans, not Americans, thus they do not belong under Americans anything. I am not a sports fan but, the way I understand it, "American taekwondo" is not an American variety of taekwondo the way "American football" is the American variety of football (to differentiate it from the meaning of "football" to the rest of the world, namely, soccer). If, for example, the Puerto Rican sportsman Ángel Román was a practitioner of an American sport called "American taekwondo" or a practitioner of the American sport called "American football" then, certainly, he should be under Category:American taekwondo practitioners or, similarly, under Category:American football practitioners (e.g., Category:American football wide receivers, because in those two contexts "American" refers to the variety of a sport and not to whether they are Americans or Puerto Ricans. Mercy11 (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Plays about the military
- Propose merging Category:Plays about the military to Category:Works about the military
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here. I tried to find a few more, but I clearly am not looking in the right places. Mason (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Merge or delete, the only article is more about religion than about the military. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)- Keep. I populated the category. It was really easy to do if you use google. I googled "plays about the military" and several sources popped up at the top of the search with a list of works... For example, this was the first google hit (https://playbill.com/article/13-shows-featuring-service-men-and-women ). I also added another existing category which should have been a sub-cat of this cat: Category:Biographical plays about military leaders. @Marcocapelle and Smasongarrison please re-consider your votes. 4meter4 (talk) 04:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking into this. The nomination is clearly moot now. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Centers for the study of antisemitism
- Nominator's rationale: 1. WP:CONCISE. 2 WP:COMMONNAME: most of the articles in the category aren't "centers" 3. Match parent "Category:Political research institutes". Longhornsg (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Terrorist incidents in the Republic of Ireland by decade
- Propose merging Category:Terrorist incidents in the Republic of Ireland in the 1960s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Terrorist incidents in Ireland in the 1960s
- Propose merging Category:Terrorist incidents in the Republic of Ireland in the 1970s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Terrorist incidents in Ireland in the 1970s
- Propose merging Category:Terrorist incidents in the Republic of Ireland in the 1980s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Terrorist incidents in Ireland in the 1980s
- Propose merging Category:Terrorist incidents in the Republic of Ireland by decade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Terrorist incidents in Ireland by decade
- Nominator's rationale: While the 1970s category is sufficiently populated, the 1960s and 1980s categories only have 1 article each. This category scheme is more useful at the Ireland as a whole level. The articles are already located elsewhere in the Category:Terrorist incidents in the Republic of Ireland tree. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Abkhaz people
- Propose merging Category:Abkhaz people to Category:Abkhazian people
- Nominator's rationale: I do not see a reason to split this two categories. Yorkporter (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge, they both have Abkhazians as the main article. The subcategories should be renamed as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:1st century in Southeast Asia
- Propose merging Category:1st century in Southeast Asia to Category:1st century by country
- Propose merging Category:1st century BC in Southeast Asia to Category:1st century BC by country
- Propose merging Category:2nd century BC in Southeast Asia to Category:2nd century BC by country
- Propose merging Category:3rd century BC in Southeast Asia to Category:3rd century BC by country
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which is unhelpful for navigation (there isn't even a 3rd century BC in Asia category) Mason (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Also merge the following per the same rationale: –Aidan721 (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge all per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @Aidan721 for finishing the job :) Mason (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:16th-century Chinese novelists
- Propose merging Category:16th-century Chinese novelists to Category:Ming dynasty novelists and Category:16th-century Chinese writers and Category:16th-century novelists
- Propose merging Category:15th-century Chinese novelists to Category:Chinese novelists and Category:15th-century Chinese writers and Category:15th-century novelists
- Propose merging Category:14th-century Chinese novelists to Category:Chinese novelists and Category:14th-century Chinese writers and Category:14th-century novelists
- Nominator's rationale: Not enough novelists to support a nationality by century intersection Mason (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom, though they can all be merged to Category:Ming dynasty novelists instead of Category:Chinese novelists. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Times of Malta
- Nominator's rationale: This category only contains the main page and a non-free image used on that page. Mason (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete in the spirit of WP:C2F. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete for Now Either per WP:NARROWCAT or WP:C2F. If the article count ever grows sufficiently, we can revisit per WP:MFN. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Purported ancient yoga texts
- Propose merging Category:Purported ancient yoga texts to Category:Works about yoga
- Nominator's rationale: subjective Mason (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: It's not subjective, as the Yoga Korunta is reliably documented as fraudulent.[1] Indeed, it wasn't even a forgery, as Krishnamacharya never produced any document, just talked about its (constantly-changing) contents and made up excuses ("eaten by ants") for its non-appearance. All the members of Category:Works about yoga, in contrast, certainly existed, and are relied upon by scholars and historians. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Why does this single page need a category by itself? Mason (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Because we have a reliably-cited article about a major and very public fraudulent claim by one of the founders, arguably the founder, of yoga as exercise; and as it happens, nobody has to date written a Wikipedia article about any other fraudulent "ancient yoga text". I'm sure lovers of tidiness would prefer richly-populated categories; but it does happen that significant things in the world sometimes come in small numbers. If Wikipedia had been around in 1776, there would only have been one member of Presidents of the United States, for instance, but the category would have been unmistakably valid for all that. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, it seems like you don't understand the purpose of categories. They are there to help navigation. Are there other cases of Purported ancient yoga texts. Although it is not relevant to this argument, just like your example, there would not have been a category in 1776 for presidents of the united states. The first president wasn't elected until 1789. Mason (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Because we have a reliably-cited article about a major and very public fraudulent claim by one of the founders, arguably the founder, of yoga as exercise; and as it happens, nobody has to date written a Wikipedia article about any other fraudulent "ancient yoga text". I'm sure lovers of tidiness would prefer richly-populated categories; but it does happen that significant things in the world sometimes come in small numbers. If Wikipedia had been around in 1776, there would only have been one member of Presidents of the United States, for instance, but the category would have been unmistakably valid for all that. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Why does this single page need a category by itself? Mason (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: It's not subjective, as the Yoga Korunta is reliably documented as fraudulent.[1] Indeed, it wasn't even a forgery, as Krishnamacharya never produced any document, just talked about its (constantly-changing) contents and made up excuses ("eaten by ants") for its non-appearance. All the members of Category:Works about yoga, in contrast, certainly existed, and are relied upon by scholars and historians. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge for now to Category:Yoga and probably to Category:Hoaxes in India, there is currently one article in it which is not helpful for navigation (without objection to recreate the category when a number of other articles about the topic are published.) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Singleton, Mark (February 10, 2010). Yoga Body: the origins of modern posture practice. Oxford University Press. pp. 8, 184–186. ISBN 978-0195395341.
Category:Plays about gambling
- Propose merging Category:Plays about gambling to Category:Works about gambling
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. theres only on category in here, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Merge per nom.Marcocapelle (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)- Oppose. Musicals are a type of play. This is an appropriate category to maintain for the category tree. Further, there are many plays about gambling. The answer is to populate the cat which I have started. 4meter4 (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Update. There are now nine articles in the cat. There are probably more out there with articles already, but I think this demonstrates this is a category with potential for expansion and the concerns raised by Smasongarrison have been addressed. Marcocapelle please consider changing your vote in light of these changes. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- The nomination is obviously moot now, but why did you not populate the category when you created the category? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle At the time I was trying to expand subcats for Category:Musicals by topic category tree. Musicals are a specific type of play, and any musical sorted by topic is a sub-cat of a play by that same topic. It was essentially a necessity to maintain the category tree. I assumed that others would eventually get around to sorting plays into the topic cats. I generally edit in areas related to musical theatre and opera. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:1st-century economic history
- Nominator's rationale: delete, isolated subcategory, the next one is for the 6th century. No need to merge, the only article is already in Category:33 and Category:Economy of ancient Rome. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Actors from London by locality
- Propose merging
- Category:Actresses from Canning Town to Category:People from Canning Town and Category:Actresses from London
- Category:Actresses from Chelsea, London to Category:People from Chelsea, London and Category:Actresses from London
- Category:Actresses from Dagenham to Category:People from Dagenham and Category:Actresses from London
- Category:Actresses from Finsbury Park to Category:People from Finsbury Park and Category:Actresses from London
- Category:Actresses from Greenwich to Category:People from Greenwich and Category:Actresses from London
- Category:Actresses from Hammersmith to Category:People from Hammersmith and Category:Actresses from London
- Category:Actresses from Hillingdon to Category:People from Hillingdon and Category:Actresses from London
- Category:Actresses from Islington (district) to Category:People from Islington and Category:Actresses from London
- Category:Actresses from Kensington to Category:People from Kensington and Category:Actresses from London
- Category:Actresses from Marylebone to Category:People from Marylebone and Category:Actresses from London
- Category:Actresses from Paddington to Category:People from Paddington and Category:Actresses from London
- Category:Actresses from Romford to Category:People from Romford and Category:Actresses from London
- Category:Actresses from Westminster to Category:People from Westminster and Category:Actresses from London
- Category:Male actors from Bermondsey to Category:People from Bermondsey and Category:Male actors from London
- Category:Male actors from Bethnal Green to Category:People from Bethnal Green and Category:Male actors from London
- Category:Male actors from Brixton to Category:People from Brixton and Category:Male actors from London
- Category:Male actors from Canning Town to Category:People from Canning Town and Category:Male actors from London
- Category:Male actors from Chelsea, London to Category:People from Chelsea, London and Category:Male actors from London
- Category:Male actors from Croydon to Category:People from Croydon and Category:Male actors from London
- Category:Male actors from Dagenham to Category:People from Dagenham and Category:Male actors from London
- Category:Male actors from Finsbury Park to Category:People from Finsbury Park and Category:Male actors from London
- Category:Male actors from Fulham to Category:People from Fulham and Category:Male actors from London
- Category:Male actors from Greenwich to Category:People from Greenwich and Category:Male actors from London
- Category:Male actors from Hackney, London to Category:People from Hackney, London and Category:Male actors from London
- Category:Male actors from Hammersmith to Category:People from Hammersmith and Category:Male actors from London
- Category:Male actors from Hampstead to Category:People from Hampstead and Category:Male actors from London
- Category:Male actors from Hillingdon to Category:People from Hillingdon and Category:Male actors from London
- Category:Male actors from Hounslow to Category:People from Hounslow and Category:Male actors from London
- Category:Male actors from Kensington to Category:People from Kensington and Category:Male actors from London
- Category:Male actors from Lambeth to Category:People from Lambeth and Category:Male actors from London
- Category:Male actors from Marylebone to Category:People from Marylebone and Category:Male actors from London
- Category:Male actors from Paddington to Category:People from Paddington and Category:Male actors from London
- Category:Male actors from Streatham to Category:People from Streatham and Category:Male actors from London
- Category:Male actors from Wandsworth to Category:People from Wandsworth and Category:Male actors from London
- Category:Male actors from Westminster to Category:People from Westminster and Category:Male actors from London
- Category:Male actors from Whitechapel to Category:People from Whitechapel and Category:Male actors from London
- Nominator's rationale: per WP:OCLOCATION; see nomination for "Sportspeople by locality" for further rationale. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Updated target categories: I previous proposed deletion for the categories listed in the collapsed box. However, I have changed those to merge with their respective "Actors from *borough*" categories per discussion below. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle, pinging so you're aware of the change; similar to how I did "Sportspeople" since that was the main concern. If needed, we can deal with "boroughs" categories later. But the first step should be to get rid of the locality tree, which is not very helpful, and simplify navigation. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Updated target categories: I previous proposed deletion for the categories listed in the collapsed box. However, I have changed those to merge with their respective "Actors from *borough*" categories per discussion below. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge, as a trivial intersection. This is mostly just by place of birth while they acted in entirely different locations (though possibly still in London). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Soft oppose on the basis of application of OCLOCATION whih makes it clear that people i.e individual articles should not be categorised by their place of birth if that is non-defining. Therefore, it should be assessed on a case by case basis: if someone is not considered to be eligible for the Male actors from Kensington category because that cannot be verified beyond a birthplace which doesn't appear to be relevant to their overall life, then they shouldn't have the People from Kensington or Male actors from London category either! So if someone wants to go through every biography for every walk of life, every time period and every location and make that judgement, fair enough. Alternatively, I have noted that other Wikis don't use a Person by Geography category sphere at all, maybe that should be considered if it is not being used correctly and so of no value? Aside from either of those extremes, we'll just have to accept that life ain't perfect and many, many bios have been categorised by birthplace so some places, even relatively small parts of cities like London, have extremely large 'From' lists and so subcategories have been created in good faith using the occupation. Deleting entire trees because the People From concept has perhaps been misapplied (and will continue to be forever, let's face it, editors of all backgrounds like to put a hometown on articles if there appears to be one, and it would be very difficult to adequately 'police' its use due to the volume) is missing the point IMO.
- It should also be noted that as things stand, Actresses from London has 1,484 articles and Male actors from London has 1,605, so little would be gained by simply bloating them out by 238 and 245 respectively. However, it is true that most of these locality categories are very small and in some cases clearly unfinished e.g only 1 member in Category:Actresses from Romford, but there are 8 females - none of whom appear to be self-declaring as non-binary! - in Category:Actors from Romford (there is no Male Actors subcat there). A Category:Actors from London by borough set has been created which these could be moved (it isn't gender-defined, but the locality categories shouldn't have been anyway as it makes them far too narrow), it might be easier to sort semi-manually using HotCat as otherwise I think it would need to be a two-step process i.e moving Male actors from Chelsea, London / Actresses from Chelsea, London into Actors from Chelsea, London, then into Actors from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, but maybe it could just be done directly...? Crowsus (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Crowsus, I would be in favor of keeping occupation boroughs for occupations that are quite big but having divisions by borough and occupation and THEN by neighborhoods/localities and occupation makes for a complicated tree. This whole tree (and that of sportspeople) is a good example of WP:OVERCAT. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. An intersection of borough and occupation is trivial. I wonder if we will go down to the street level. If Category:Actors from London/Category:Male actors from London/Category:Actresses from London are large, it may be an indication that this intersection itself is probably not very defining. Intersection by theatre company (when that was a lifelong thing), genre, century may be more useful. Even though thousands of people (maybe tens of thousands) are primarily defined as a British actor, it will still be the most appropriate way to describe them in many cases. London is both, for centuries, a huge population centre and a capital of stage arts, it is hardly surprising there are many actors associated to it. Place Clichy (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Place Clichy, you should take a look at the "Sportspeople by locality" categories just below this one. Its a similar situation. My suggestion is to simplify navigation (i.e. get rid of the locality categories) before dealing with the borough level categories. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Economics by year
- Propose renaming Category:Economics by year to Category:Economic history by year
- Nominator's rationale: rename aligning with parent Category:Economic history and siblings Category:Economic history by century and decade. If this is approved, the subcategories can probably be speedied. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom Mason (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Sportspeople from London by locality
- Propose deleting Category:Sportspeople from London by locality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Cricketers from London by locality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Footballers from London by locality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose merging:
- Category:Rugby union players from Bromley to Category:People from Bromley and Category:Rugby union players from the London Borough of Bromley
- Category:Rugby union players from Croydon to Category:People from Croydon and Category:Rugby union players from the London Borough of Croydon
- Category:Rugby union players from Greenwich to Category:People from Greenwich and Category:Rugby union players from the Royal Borough of Greenwich
- Category:Rugby union players from Kingston upon Thames to Category:People from Kingston upon Thames and Category:Rugby union players from the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames
- Nominator's rationale: per WP:OCLOCATION. The "Sportspeople from London" categories covered by the city; these have recently been divided further by borough and then by neighborhoods within the borough and THEN by sports. Makes navigation quite confusing and complicated. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Updated target categories: I've changed target categories to their respective boroughs. There were a few for cricketers who didn't have borough targets so I suggest triple merge them to "Sportspeople from *borough*" and "Cricketers from Greater London" - @Marcocapelle, is this fine? Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge, as a trivial intersection. This is mostly just by place of birth while they played sports in entirely different locations. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, the whole point of these is the parent categories such as People from Croydon and Footballers from Greater London would be far too large. There is nothing confusing at all about someone being categorised by the sport they play and the town they are from as long as the tree of each follows a logical path, which these do. Crowsus (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Tagging user:Grutness, user:Jevansen, user:Suonii180 and user:Namiba who are among those have also invested a great deal of time and effort in these trees and would probably be interested in this bid to blanket undo them conceptually (doubtless the result of this would be used as a precedent for other locations). Perhaps they can make more convincing arguments for retaining than me. Crowsus (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Lastly, theupmerge proposal is badly flawed as it should be that these nominated categories be upmerged first to the level above, e.g Sportspeople, Cricketers and Footballers from Kensington and Sportspeople, Cricketers and Footballers from Chelsea should all be upmerged to Sportspeople from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, Cricketers from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and, you've guessed it, Footballers from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Alternatively those Borough-level cats should also be nominated for upmerging, but that hasn't happened. Interesting to see what the reaction would be if this proposal was mirrored in equivalent American trees and so drew the attention of more editors in that part of the world: I see no reason why the London trees should go but the likes of Category:Sportspeople from Riverside County, California with its 3 location subcats and 5 sport subcats should stay (just to be clear, I have no problem with the American ones, they are valid and so are the English ones). Crowsus (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, and a couple have been missed (Rugby union players from Kingston upon Thames, Rugby union players from Bromley) and there's a few disambigs in the upmerge to list. PS to give just 1 example in 1 sport from over 30 boroughs, upmerging the footballers from the London Borough of Lambeth and its localities would add 191 articles to Footballers from Greater London. Let's say the average is 150, so in what way does bloating that category by 4,500 aid navigation for anyone? Crowsus (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Lastly, theupmerge proposal is badly flawed as it should be that these nominated categories be upmerged first to the level above, e.g Sportspeople, Cricketers and Footballers from Kensington and Sportspeople, Cricketers and Footballers from Chelsea should all be upmerged to Sportspeople from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, Cricketers from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and, you've guessed it, Footballers from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Alternatively those Borough-level cats should also be nominated for upmerging, but that hasn't happened. Interesting to see what the reaction would be if this proposal was mirrored in equivalent American trees and so drew the attention of more editors in that part of the world: I see no reason why the London trees should go but the likes of Category:Sportspeople from Riverside County, California with its 3 location subcats and 5 sport subcats should stay (just to be clear, I have no problem with the American ones, they are valid and so are the English ones). Crowsus (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Tagging user:Grutness, user:Jevansen, user:Suonii180 and user:Namiba who are among those have also invested a great deal of time and effort in these trees and would probably be interested in this bid to blanket undo them conceptually (doubtless the result of this would be used as a precedent for other locations). Perhaps they can make more convincing arguments for retaining than me. Crowsus (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle, would you be in favor of changing the target categories to "Footballers by borough" (and so on) in order to avoid making Category:Footballers from Greater London (and so on) too big? Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that "too big" is a problem here, because sportspeople born in London (or a borough of it) have nothing in common with each other anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't really understand that statement, can you explain? Crowsus (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Categories are primarily useful because they allow to find more information about a broader topic very easily. But people just born in a certain place is not the kind of topic that anyone would likely want to find more information about. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't really understand that statement, can you explain? Crowsus (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that "too big" is a problem here, because sportspeople born in London (or a borough of it) have nothing in common with each other anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, the whole point of these is the parent categories such as People from Croydon and Footballers from Greater London would be far too large. There is nothing confusing at all about someone being categorised by the sport they play and the town they are from as long as the tree of each follows a logical path, which these do. Crowsus (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Rescope/upmerge to sportspeople, cricketers, etc by London borough. Locality isn't very helpful, but borough is an established tree for biographies in general so it would make sense to have sportspeople similarly divided. London's boroughs are each as big as a medium-sized city anyway. Grutness...wha? 02:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Grutness, I would be fine with changing target categories to boroughs. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete/merge per nom. The fact that there are many sportspeople from London, among all places, does not mean it needs to be made into multiple irrelevant categories. Large categories are fine. Place Clichy (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose original target to Greater London sport categories as separation into smaller categories can be very useful especially with sports that tend to have a large amount of players such as football. However I wouldn't be against them being merged into boroughs rather than locality as an alternative. Suonii180 (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Suonii180, they are being merged to boroughs. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Early Germanic economy
- Propose renaming Category:Early Germanic economy to Category:Viking Age economy
- Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, all three articles are about the Viking Age. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom Mason (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Americas
- Propose merging Category:Port cities in the Americas to Category:Port cities by continent
- Propose merging Category:Transgender in the Americas to Category:Transgender by continent
- Propose merging Category:Intersex rights in the Americas to Category:Intersex rights by continent
- Propose merging Category:Rugby union in the Americas to Category:Rugby union by continent
- Propose merging Category:Indigenist political parties in the Americas to Category:Indigenist political parties
- Propose merging Category:Airports in the Americas to Category:Airports by continent
- Propose merging Category:Communist parties in the Americas to Category:Communist parties by continent
- Propose merging Category:Slums in the Americas to Category:Slums by continent
- Propose merging Category:Banknotes of the Americas to Category:Banknotes by continent
- Propose merging Category:Finance in the Americas to Category:Finance by continent
- Propose merging Category:Newspapers of the Americas to Category:Newspapers by continent
- Propose merging Category:Attacks on hospitals in the Americas to Category:Attacks on hospitals by continent
- Propose merging Category:Numismatic museums in the Americas to Category:Numismatic museums
- Propose merging Category:Skyscrapers in the Americas to Category:Skyscrapers by continent
- Propose merging Category:Tunnels in the Americas to Category:Tunnels by continent
- Propose merging Category:Tourist attractions in the Americas to Category:Tourist attractions by continent
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's nothing in each category but a north american and south american category. Is a followup to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 10#Category:Organizations based in the Americas by country Mason (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. It would have been different if there would have been a fair amount of articles covering both continents together, but that is not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support. As arbitrary as is the conventional division of the world in 7 continents, multiple conflicting overlapping schemes are worse. These categories are not helpful. Note that, for a select few topics, it is pertinent to look at the Americas as a whole, especially sports federations and international organizations that are organized along this scope. For all other topics, this is a conflicting overlap. Place Clichy (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Discrimination in Trinidad and Tobago
- Nominator's rationale: Only a redirect in this category, upmerge for now Mason (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Marriage in early Germanic culture
- Propose merging Category:Marriage in early Germanic culture to Category:Early Germanic culture
- Nominator's rationale: Small category that doesn't need to be isolated from the larger category Mason (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Dual merge, also to Category:Marriage in Europe. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge. Place Clichy (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Children by culture
- Propose merging Category:Children by culture to Category:History of childhood
- Nominator's rationale: Small category that doesn't really cover culture. It covers childhood in older societies Mason (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per actual content of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Economies by culture
- Propose renaming Category:Economies by culture to Category:Ancient economies
- Nominator's rationale: Based on the content of the articles/categories. This isn't about culture, but are ancient countries Mason (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom, but then purge Category:Early Germanic economy as it has medieval content. Alternatively, merge it to Category:Economic history (again excluding Category:Early Germanic economy which is in the medieval subcat). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Rename per nom, including the rescoping discussed at #Category:Early Germanic economy.
Category:Emigrants from the Spanish Netherlands to England
- Nominator's rationale: Broaden the parent category, there's no Emigrants from the Spanish Netherlands category, and there are only three folks in here. This nom is in the same spirit as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_7#Emigrants_from_former_countries Mason (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. After renaming, Category:Walloon emigrants to the Dutch Republic may become a subcategory of it. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Adolescence in the Americas
- Propose merging Category:Adolescence in the Americas to Category:Adolescence by continent
- Nominator's rationale: Category is unhelpful for navigation. It only has north and south america in it Mason (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. It would have been different if there would have been a fair amount of articles covering both continents together, but that is not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:People of the Scientific Revolution
- Convert Category:People of the Scientific Revolution to article People of the Scientific Revolution
- Nominator's rationale: Extremely subjective Mason (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NONDEF, and the idea that a revolution took place is very controversial. The existing Scientific Revolution article is fine, but we need no more than that. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, a good suggestion for an article but that has nothing to do with keeping the existing category. Since the Scientific Revolution topic exists (a period of changes long named and recognized) there is little reason to negate a category listing its main achievers. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, but who counts as "main achievers"? Mason (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- The existence of an article is not enough justification for creating a category, i.e. not every article needs an eponymous article. Besides we already have Category:17th-century scientists and Category:18th-century scientists, it would largely overlap. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, but who counts as "main achievers"? Mason (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as subjective. Article Scientific Revolution is sufficient to elaborate on the notion, including presenting major figures. Place Clichy (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Modern Greek dramatists and playwrights
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This category is unhelpful for navigation. It only isolates the FOOian-century categories. Mason (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge, redundant category layer with only three subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:FOO women executed for witchcraft
- Propose merging Category:French women executed for witchcraft to Category:French people executed for witchcraft and Category:Executed French women
- Propose merging Category:Scottish women executed for witchcraft to Category:Scottish people executed for witchcraft and Category:Executed Scottish women
- Propose merging Category:English women executed for witchcraft to Category:English people executed for witchcraft and Category:Executed English women
- Propose merging Category:German women executed for witchcraft to Category:German people executed for witchcraft and Category:Executed German women
- Propose merging Category:Women executed in the Salem witch trials to Category:People executed in the Salem witch trials and Category:Executed American women
- Propose merging Category:American women executed for witchcraft to Category:Executed American women and Category:American people executed for witchcraft
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as I'm not sure that we should be distinguishing at the intersection of gender, nationality and type of crime. This does not seem in the keeping of WP:EGRS. If kept, this category should be non-diffusing Mason (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Oppose as creatorNeutral. My rationale for making the categories in the first place (as with all of the other "Foo women executed for witchcraft") is that European witch trials historically have had important gendered implications (see Witch trials in the early modern period & how it discusses gender), and that, from my perspective, the creation of a few new subcategories by gender could be helpful for readers. WP:EGRS/G does state that "A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic." In my opinion, these categories fall in line with EGRS/G due to the historical context of the early modern witch trials and are useful for navigation. However, if consensus emerges in favor of deletion, I'll adjust my understanding of the guideline.
Addendum: After thinking about it for a little bit, & re-reading the guidelines, I can certainly understand the nom's rationale. I think, personally, they are useful categories (with perhaps the exception of "Women executed in the SWT", I'm now not convinced that's really necessary), especially as subcategories of Cat:Foo executed women. However, I'm not very experienced in this area of categorization discourse; I'll defer to the regulars here, & I'm taking this as a learning experience regardless of outcome. Thanks for bearing with my EGRS newbie mistakes & late-night WP:BOLD editing sprees. sawyer * he/they * talk 23:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)- Support per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support, I had always thought that only women were victims of witchcraft executions but that appears to be not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)