Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 12
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)
- Propose merging Category:Fictional werewolf hunters to Category:Fictional monster hunters
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose AHI-3000 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. The world (and this category) needs more werewolf hunters. Keeping us safe from lyncanthropes! Cbl62 (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Fictional 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)
- 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)
- Support AHI-3000 (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Fictional characters 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)
- 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)
- Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category: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)
- Propose merging Category:Greek journalists by century to Category:Greek journalists
- 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)
@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)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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)
- Propose merging Category:1901–02 NCAA football bowl games to Category:1901 college football season
- Nominator's rationale: Only one page in this category. Let'srun (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- It may be an idea for the future to create decade categories and merge all years to decades until 1939. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Though, what's special about 1939? Why is that the best cutoff? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- That is what I had in mind. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- However, then the category Category:College football bowls in the 1900s, which is what would happen to this category, would still have one entry (i.e. no difference). BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- True, that would only help for the 1910s and up. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- However, then the category Category:College football bowls in the 1900s, which is what would happen to this category, would still have one entry (i.e. no difference). BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- That is what I had in mind. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Though, what's special about 1939? Why is that the best cutoff? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per Namiba. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Combine into newly created cat for Category:College football bowl games, 1901–1933 or Category:College football bowl games prior to 1934. All of the cats in earlier years have only one (occasionally two or three bowls). The bowl process started to proliferate more in 1934. The combined category will automatically sort by year, and this seems like a substantially more efficient categorization structure rather than having 30 or so cats with minimal entries. Cbl62 (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- This would still violate WP:OCMISC in my opinion. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge Since the NCAA didn't exist yet. Open to broader improvements to this category tree in a later nomination. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category: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)
- 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)
- Comment, as above, the subcategories are neither listed here nor tagged. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I have described them exactly above. I will take any required actions if the the result is delete. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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)
- 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)
- Procedural oppose, some subcategories are not empty, so if the nominated categories aren't kept, they should be merged somewhere rather than deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I intend to change the template so that these categories are not populated anymore. They will still be in Category:Wikipedia level-unknown vital articles — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
- My procedural oppose is meanwhile moot. The categories can be deleted if only because they are permanently empty now. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category: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)
- Propose merging Category:Photographic history books to Category:Books of photographs
- 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)
- Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- @MSGJ: do you intend to nominate the subcategories too? If so, you need to list them here and tag the category pages. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I wrote "and all subcategories" above. I don't really have time to tag every single page ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- @MSGJ: then someone else has to do it, or the discussion will end in a procedural close without action. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Well that would be a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy, wouldn't it? If this discussion results in consensust to delete, then I will carry out all needed further actions. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- @MSGJ: then someone else has to do it, or the discussion will end in a procedural close without action. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I wrote "and all subcategories" above. I don't really have time to tag every single page ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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)
- 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)
- Quite a few subcategories aren't about disabilities per se. I would rather suggest renaming the category to Category:Fictional characters by medical or psychological condition - similar to Category:People by medical or psychological condition - and downmerge Category:Fictional characters with disabilities into it. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'd be in support of the rename, but I would not support the downmerge. Disability is not the same as a medical or psychological condition Mason (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- The disorders categories do belong in a medical or psychological condition,
but dyslexia not so much so that one should be purged with the downmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)- Can you walk me through your reasoning for dyslexia not being a medical/psychological condition? Because I consider it to to be one; I'd like to understand. Mason (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am striking that part of my comment, leaving that discussion to other editors if they want to. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Can you walk me through your reasoning for dyslexia not being a medical/psychological condition? Because I consider it to to be one; I'd like to understand. Mason (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- The disorders categories do belong in a medical or psychological condition,
- I'd be in support of the rename, but I would not support the downmerge. Disability is not the same as a medical or psychological condition Mason (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
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)
- Support And purge all that don't fit - we don't need such lengthy and confusingly named categories. This is a textbook WP:ARBITRARYCAT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
- @Zxcvbnm: but then the subcategories that do not fit should go somewhere else and I still think that Category:Fictional characters by medical or psychological condition would be a good "somewhere else". Marcocapelle (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: I see no real problem with sending those to Category:Fictional characters by physical feature. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
- Propose merging Category:School buildings in Oregon to Category:Schools in Oregon
- Propose merging Category:School buildings in Idaho to Category:Schools in Idaho
- Propose merging Category:School buildings in Georgia (U.S. state) to Category:Schools in Georgia (U.S. state)
- Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer with one sub-category. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- User:Namiba has a point, i.e. it should become a dual merge also to Category:School buildings in the United States while the school buildings tree still exists. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- The only sub-categories of the nominations are members of Category:School buildings on the National Register of Historic Places. The entire Category:School buildings in the United States tree is pretty much Category:School buildings on the National Register of Historic Places. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I see, so yeah, then merging to Category:School buildings in the United States is redundant, the content remains in the tree of Category:School buildings anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- The only sub-categories of the nominations are members of Category:School buildings on the National Register of Historic Places. The entire Category:School buildings in the United States tree is pretty much Category:School buildings on the National Register of Historic Places. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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)
- Propose merging Category:Vegetation of New Zealand to Category:Flora of New Zealand
- Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories Mason (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. These are not overlapping at all. Vegetation is different and distinct from individual plant species. Hesperian 23:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- The flora category should not be limited to individual species. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Merge. No difference. Gderrin (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Agree with @Hesperian:. 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 The distinction should be kept, even though not all contributors understand it. MargaretRDonald (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
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)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)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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)
- Propose merging Category:Vegetation of Australia to Category:Flora of Australia
- 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)
- Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. These are not overlapping at all. Vegetation is different and distinct from individual plant species, as the category page clearly states. It doesn't need renaming either -- the term "vegetation" serves as the name of our article vegetation, and no-one has felt that it needs to be clarified or disambiguated. Hesperian 23:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- The flora category should not be limited to individual species. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- That is just a restatement of the proposal: redefining the flora category to encompass both species articles and vegetation articles, is exactly what is proposed. But I don't see a sensible rationale for doing so. The claim that they are overlapping is simply false. They are related but distinct. Hesperian 12:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Flora is all plant life. Vegetation belongs to plant life too. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Golly, it sounds like vegetation is a sub-category of flora. Hesperian 10:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Flora is all plant life. Vegetation belongs to plant life too. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- That is just a restatement of the proposal: redefining the flora category to encompass both species articles and vegetation articles, is exactly what is proposed. But I don't see a sensible rationale for doing so. The claim that they are overlapping is simply false. They are related but distinct. Hesperian 12:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- The flora category should not be limited to individual species. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)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)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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)
- Propose renaming Category:Montenegrin Malacologists to Category:Montenegrin malacologists
- Nominator's rationale: "malacologists" should not start with a capital letter in this category name. Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy rename per C2A. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- @LaundryPizza03 Ah whoops, I forgot about that speedy rename criteria, thanks. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Speedy rename per C2A. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Alt merge to Category:Montenegrin scientists and Category:Malacologists, there is only one article in the category which is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: On top of that, Vladimir Pešić appears to be the only Montenegrin-nationality biologist and zoologist currently at least on English Wikipedia, let alone malacologist. There aren't even categories for the former two, but this one was created anyway. While I agree with you, I think the reason I didn't suggest this myself was because I saw other single-article malacologists by nationality categories such as Category:Irish malacologists and Category:Norwegian malacologists, and I wasn't prepared to make this a bigger discussion (maybe I was tired). Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
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)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)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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)
- Propose merging Category:History of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands by period to Category:History of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
- Propose merging Category:Years of the 20th century in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands to Category:Years in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
- Propose deleting Category:20th century in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
- Propose merging Category:20th-century establishments in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands to Category:Establishments in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands by decade
- Propose merging Category:20th-century disestablishments in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands to Category:Disestablishments in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands by decade
- Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands by century
- Propose deleting Category:Disestablishments in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands by century
- 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)
- Merge/delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support extra layers not needed for a former jurisdiction that only existed in one century. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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)
- Propose merging Category:Years of the 20th century in the Trucial States to Category:Years in the Trucial States
- Propose deleting Category:20th century in the Trucial States
- Propose merging Category:20th-century establishments in the Trucial States to Category:Establishments in the Trucial States by decade
- Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Trucial States by century
- Propose deleting Category:Centuries in the Trucial States
- 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)
- Support per nom Mason (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge/delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category: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)
- Propose merging Category:Concept- and mind-mapping software programmed in Java to Category:Java platform software and Category:Concept- and mind-mapping software for Linux
- Propose merging Category:Concept- and mind-mapping software that uses GTK to Category:Software that uses GTK and Category:Concept- and mind-mapping software for Linux
- Propose merging Category:Concept- and mind-mapping software that uses Qt to Category:Software that uses Qt and Category:Concept- and mind-mapping software for Linux
- Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:NARROWCAT. Unhelpful for navigation. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support GTK and Qt/Neutral on Java GTK and Qt are clearly NARROWCAT. The Java one is well populated but I defer to others whether that intersection is defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
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)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)
- Merge GTK and Qt, very poorly populated categories, that is not helpful for navigation. No objection to recreate these categories when more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category: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)
- Nominator's rationale: Only one subcategory. Let'srun (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Upmerge. This should be upmerged to Loyola Ramblers football Mason (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)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)
- Delete per nom. Merging is not needed because the subcategory is already in Category:Loyola Ramblers football seasons. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete without administering novocaine. Per the article on the Chicago Dental Infirmary, it only operated as such from March 12, 1883, until June 30, 1884. It was thereafter rechartered and became the "Chicago College of Dental Surgery". So this category is premised on a misnomer, and it appears there was never any such thing as "Chicago Dental Infirmary football". The sources listed at 1897 Chicago Dental Infirmary football team confirm that the school was then known as the "Chicago College of Dental Surgery" (e.g., here and here), and not the "Chicago Dental Infirmary". Pull the lone tooth from this category and it becomes an empty and useless dental alveolus. Cbl62 (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category: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)
- Nominator's rationale: Only one article in this category Let'srun (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Upmerge. This should be upmerged to Loyola Ramblers football seasons Mason (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- Delete, there is only a redirect and a subcategory. (I am not sure about merging to Loyola Ramblers football seasons.) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
- Delete per nom. As far as I can tell. This team was not a precursor to the Loyola Ramblers team, but rather the only association is that Chicago Dental Infirmary was merged into the dental school at Loyola Chicago in 1926. At the time they were separate institutions with no relation. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, and once again sans novocaine. See my rationale on the master category. Cbl62 (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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)
- Propose deleting:
- 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)
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)- Delete per nom. Not sure why these categories exist. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all as empty per WP:CSD#C1. The usage of Template:possibly empty category is inappropriate for these categories and I'm not sure why that would have been added. That template is reserved for cleanup categories that often get emptied and then repopulated, these categories don't fit into that mold. VegaDark (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with you in theory that these should be speedyable, but I generally prefer to get explicit consensus before undertaking mass actions, so here we are. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment do the language user boxes autocategorize into "CAT:User ISO639" base category if the "-X" skill level subcategory is missing? -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- It depends. If they are done by #babel: then it will cause Babel AutoCreate to recreate the category; If they are done by a template then it will most likely populate the category despite being red, and someone on WantedCategories patrol will recreate it. But most of these have been empty for years or longer, so that's unlikely. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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
- Category:Actresses by city or town in France to Category:French actresses by populated place
- Category:Actresses by city or town in China to Category:Chinese actresses by populated place
- Category:Actresses by city or town in Canada to
Category:Canadese actresses by populated placeCategory:Canadian actresses by populated place - Category:Actresses by city or town in Brazil to Category:Brazilian actresses by populated place
- Category:Sportspeople by city or town in Portugal to Category:Portuguese sportspeople by populated place
- 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)
- Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom Mason (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Rename per nom except "Canadese" should be "Canadian". Also tagging sibling categories in Category:Actresses by country and populated place and Category:Sportspeople by country and populated place for consistency.
Opposeas proposed. As I mentioned at CFDS, it should be Category:Actresses from France by populated place to be in line with the results of the previous CfD in October. If a change is desired from that format, all the previously moved categories should also be tagged for renaming. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)- That discussion involved moving the splitter from the middle to the end. This discussion is about changing "Actresses from Foo" to "Fooite actresses" following the tree Category:People by occupation and nationality and city. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I just saw the December CfD. The problem here is that we now have conflicting precedents: The October one was for People from Foo by place, while the December one was for Fooian people by place. I've struck my oppose here, but a follow-up nom is needed to reconcile the whole tree one way or the other. (And for that matter, I still think the People from Foo format is preferable as the one that properly reflects the member categories. Being considered to be "from" a place does not imply one must have that place's nationality.) --Paul_012 (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- That discussion involved moving the splitter from the middle to the end. This discussion is about changing "Actresses from Foo" to "Fooite actresses" following the tree Category:People by occupation and nationality and city. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
State or territory
- Propose renaming:
- Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by condition by state to Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by condition and state or territory
- Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by state to Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by state or territory
- Category:Populated places in the United States by state to Category:Populated places in the United States by state or territory
- Category:Roads in the United States by territory to Category:Roads in the United States by state or territory
- Category:Sports in the United States by state to Category:Sports in the United States by state or territory
- Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in the United States by state to Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in the United States by state or territory
Copy of speedy discussions (only replies)
|
---|
First discussion
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)
- Pinging @Place Clichy, @Smasongarrison, @Aidan721, @Mercy11, @Marcocapelle, @Ymblanter, @The Eloquent Peasant, and @Elizabeth Linden Rahway from the speedy discussion. If I missed anyone, please add them. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Adding participants from the intial Cfd on this name change: @Fayenatic london and @Peterkingiron. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Qualified support for renaming, but I do not support including things that are not states or territories in this scheme (i.e. [x] from Washington, D.C.). The United States has four-top level administrative divisions under our federal government and states and territories are not the same thing as the federal district or tribal lands, so I don't support conflating those. If someone wants to make the category scheme actually be about more than states and territories, then I suggest some other kind of name, possibly "[x] by place in the United States" which itself can include categories for states, territories, or even general regions like the Midwest. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- However, in reference to "possibly '[x] by place in the United States' which itself can include categories for states, territories..." that would not be factual for the territories are not in the United States. Please review what constitutes "the United States". Mercy11 (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Procedural comment, I have tagged the category pages but I do not have a particular opinion in this discussion. This was merely technical assistance. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. The broader tail allows for states, territories, historical territories, and federal districts to be included. See List of states and territories of the United States. It may be helpful to add a {{Cmbox}} to clarify insular area relationship to the United States and the inclusion of both current and historical territories as well as the federal district. Having all the top-level subdivisions in the same category scheme is best for navigation purposes. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom and echo Aidan721. I think that the broader tail is extremely valuable as it doesn't impose a hierarchy on the types groups/territories etc. In many cases, the type of district/state etc isn't a meaningful intersection (like are Jews from Washington DC uniquely different from Jews from Montana because one is a state and one is a district?), but rather a means to diffuse a very large category. Mason (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- However, in reference to "the broader tail is extremely valuable as it doesn't impose a hierarchy on the types groups/territories etc", that argument would be the Straw man Fallacy as it doesn't say why imposing a hierarchy on the types of groups/territories would be a bad thing. Mercy11 (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Aidan721: The proposed scheme and its naming would not include Washingotn, D.C. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Koavf, it would. That is the point of making it "state or territory", so the territories and federal districts don't require a seperate tree. I know you don't agree but I would say that everyone voting "support" on here (and in previous related Cfds) is in agreement on that. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Washington, D.C. is not a territory. The Navajo Nation is not a territory. Thule Air Force Base is not a territory, etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware, Native American reservations and military bases don't have categories like Washington, D.C. does. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- E.g. Category:Prisons in Guantanamo Bay and Category:Prisons in Puerto Rico or Category:Prisons in Arizona, also Category:Navajo Nation airports and Category:Airports in Guam or Category:Airports in Nebraska. Washington, D.C. is not a territory. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Washington, D.C. is a federal district, which is a special type of territory. [1] –Aidan721 (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- That is why too many concepts in one category leads to problems and requires careful thought out discussion. I was amazed when you attempted to do this during the busy holidays as a speedy change. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @The Eloquent Peasant, Aidan did it because a previous Cfd on the matter (this one) changed the names of all such categories from "State" to "State or territory". I think it is unfair to imply that he did without any previous discussion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think you ought to owe me an apology for the absurd accusations you've thrown my way. If you'd have done any ounce of investigating into how this category divide came to be, you'd see that the root category was moved via discussion in 2019 OF WHICH I WAS NO A PART OF NOR THE ONE ABOVE. I moved the categories according to the consensus reached BY PRIOR DISCUSSIONS. To make this into some kind of personal attack in a slippery slope my friend. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Washington is not a federal district, but the federal district. Words carry weight here. Additionally, Washington is not a territory, so it couldn't possibly be a "special type of territory" either. Let's not craft our own definitions when the SCOTUS has already done that work for us. The only way we could argue Washington is a territory is to define it using the general meaning of "territory", that is, "an area of land". But in that case, of course, all the 50 states would also be territories of the US, and we would then have to look to rename all categories in "Category:Foo in the United States by state" into "Category:Foo in the United States by territory", which would contain all 50 states and DC as territories of the US, but not Puerto Rico, the USVI, American Samoa, etc., since they aren't in the US. Is that really what we want? Mercy11 (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Regardless of what a Scottish encyclopedia says:
- The District of Columbia is not a territory
- The United States controls 14 territories, none of which are D. C.
- The United States controls 14 territories, none of which are D. C.
- There are only five populated American territories
- An insular area is "not a state or a federal district" and there are 13 unincorporated territories and one incorporated territory
- There are five populated territories
- Please stop spreading this misinformation. WASHINGTON, D. C. IS NOT A TERRITORY and cannot be a territory. Do not categorize it like it's a state or territory when it is not. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- That is why too many concepts in one category leads to problems and requires careful thought out discussion. I was amazed when you attempted to do this during the busy holidays as a speedy change. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware, Native American reservations and military bases don't have categories like Washington, D.C. does. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Washington, D.C. is not a territory. The Navajo Nation is not a territory. Thule Air Force Base is not a territory, etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Koavf, it would. That is the point of making it "state or territory", so the territories and federal districts don't require a seperate tree. I know you don't agree but I would say that everyone voting "support" on here (and in previous related Cfds) is in agreement on that. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- However, in reference to "Support...the broader tail allows for...territories, historical territories, and federal districts to be included", that would be like saying "Oppose...the narrower tail allows for territories, historical territories, and federal districts to be excluded," both irrelevant conclusion fallacies. Mercy11 (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom and echo Aidan721. I think that the broader tail is extremely valuable as it doesn't impose a hierarchy on the types groups/territories etc. In many cases, the type of district/state etc isn't a meaningful intersection (like are Jews from Washington DC uniquely different from Jews from Montana because one is a state and one is a district?), but rather a means to diffuse a very large category. Mason (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose and propose - I propose the following scheme.
- Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by condition by state to Category:Buildings and structures OF the United States by condition and state or territory
- Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by state to Category:Buildings and structures OF the United States by state or territory
- Category:Populated places in the United States by state to Category:Populated places OF the United States by state or territory
- Category:Roads in the United States by territory to Category:Roads OF the United States by state or territory
- Category:Sports in the United States by state to Category:Sports OF the United States by state or territory
- Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in the United States by state to Category:Seminaries and theological colleges OF the United States by state or territory without the capitalization of the word of, of course. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sometimes, "of" sounds odd. For example with buildings: a building is of the owner of the building, rather than of the United States. It also creates inconsistency with other countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- *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)
- I agree here. "of" gives the sense of ownership in this context. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- That is what I would advocate for. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. 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. Mason (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. Mercy11 (talk) 16:21, 21 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. Mason (talk) 21:45, 20 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. Yarfpr (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I don't think that the root of Category:Insular areas of the United States should be removed, and I don't think that this proposition implies that it should. Place Clichy (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Neither do I.
- What I was proposing is for the root of Category:Categories by state or territory of the United States be done away with as it is redundant with the union of the two (and long-standing) categories "Category:Categories by state of the United States" and "Category:Insular areas of the United States". That is, the latter two already account for all the subcategory families related to the incorporated territories of the US (aka, the states and DC) as well as to the unincorporated US territories (aka, the Insular Areas). Perhaps most important, the category "Category:Categories by state or territory of the United States", in attempting to act as a catch-all, actually introduces ambiguity, in addition to presumptions that are contrary to reality, such as equating --albeit unintentionally-- the territories with the states of the Union (see explanation above). Mercy11 (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Keep The discussion above about whether Washington, D.C is a territory shows that this rename introduces ambiguity, without actually solving any clear problem. The few categories by non-state subdivisions of the United States can be put directly in "foos in the United States" without further subcategorization. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Huh? I don't understand. You appear to be contradiction yourself. Mercy11 (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support a renaming that uses by state and territory. What matters here most is how to organize content that's relative to American subdivisions. What matters less, but has in the past unfortunately polluted such discussions as well as the organization of categories, is the respective status of these places. An obvious need is to diffuse large US-related categories by geography, per WP:DIFFUSE, and an obvious solution is to have children diffusion categories that cover all types of subdivisions, i.e. states, historic and present-day territories, minor outlying islands and the federal district. A similar solution is used for Categories by state or territory of Australia, Categories by province or territory of Canada and Categories by state or union territory of India which are comparable. We unfortunately still see pernickety editors removing places like Washington D.C. from geographically diffused American categories, placing them at the root of U.S. categories, which defeats the purpose of diffusion by geography. Place Clichy (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
- Propose merging Category:American rock music genres to Category:Rock music genres
- Propose merging Category:British rock music genres to Category:Rock music genres
- Propose merging Category:American hip hop genres to Category:Hip hop genres
- Propose merging Category:British hip hop genres to Category:Hip hop genres
- 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)
- 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)
- Merge per nom and WP:OVERLAPCAT. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category: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)
- 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)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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)
- Propose merging Category:Death in Italy by place to Category:Death in Italy
- 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)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People 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)
- Propose merging Category:People executed by explosive device to Category:Deaths by explosive device
- Nominator's rationale: Extremely small category. Upmerge for now. Mason (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Read the story of Eugenio Calò. How did the Nazis even come up with such sick shit? Nonetheless, the upmerge makes sense. Cbl62 (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Historical 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)
- Propose merging Category:Historical research institutes to Category:History institutes
- Nominator's rationale: These appear to refer to the same type of research institutes. Logan Talk Contributions 00:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom, or if there is any difference between the two categories then it should be clarified much better. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support merge They are almost same. killer bee 15:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.