Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sgubaldo (talk | contribs) at 18:11, 25 July 2024 (i realise changing the title broke links to this, so undoing that). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< July 23
July 25 >

July 24

Category:Pages using AM station data without facility ID

Nominator's rationale: No longer used by {{AM station data}} after the cleanup was completed. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 22:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages using FM station data without facility ID

Nominator's rationale: No longer used by {{FM station data}} now that the cleanup has been completed. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 22:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with Asperger syndrome

Nominator's rationale: and also manually merge where needed to categories in Category:People on the autism spectrum. Many of these are already there, I would say. In some cases, I can't find sources which say they were diagnosed with it; in which case purge. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sam & Cat

Nominator's rationale: Only contains one article. Should also be merged to Category:Victorious. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films produced by Thomas K. Gray

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization: This is a category for films directed by someone who has either never had or no longer has a Wikipedia article about them. It has only one entry for a film from 1993 and a search for additional articles that meet the criteria of this category turned up no results. I would not oppose this category being re-created in the future if Gray produces additional films, but at the present moment this is unhelpful for navigating Wikipedia Vegantics (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cochise County conflict

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:COPSEP, this should be split into a non-people and people category, enabling the people to be places in such categories as Category:19th-century people by conflict, etc. --woodensuperman 12:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American folklore

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:COPSEP, this should be split into a people and non-people category. --woodensuperman 12:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Family of Boris Johnson

Nominator's rationale: Reverse speedy name change. It was an error on my part; I didn't realize that the original version was the correct form. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, I would say that the name, for now, should be made consistant with all the other categories and then a later Cfd can be opened with an A and B option for categories like this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the principle of discussing the A and B options; would that be an RfC or can CfDs present two possibilities like that? I've found many more categories to add to Category:Families by person (which has been speedily renamed since earlier in this conversation), and the picture now looks very mixed. Ham II (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works about villains

Nominator's rationale: This topic is really vague in the extreme, almost anything can be called a "villain" by someone or characterized as being "about" a villain if they feature heavily in the plot. It doesn't make sense as a category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Works with villain protagonists. Looking at one of the articles, I think this is supposed to be about works with a villain as the protagonist, such as Soon I Will Be Invincible. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Category:Works featuring villain protagonists, like the video game subcategory, Category:Video games featuring villain protagonists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dobrujan Tatar

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. It only has two articles: Dobrujan Tatar and Dobrujan Tatar alphabet. Everything can be included in the parent Category:Crimean Tatar language, as Dobrujan Tatar is a dialect of it (and the page on the dialect already includes this category). Super Ψ Dro 23:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might sound confusing due to the geographic names but the Crimean Khanate once extended beyond Crimea and its population was semi-nomadic from what I understand. Dobrujan Tatar is a dialect of the Crimean Tatar language, this has been discussed already at Talk:Dobrujan Tatar. Super Ψ Dro 10:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I had not checked ths talk page. From what I understand of the discussion, the merge target should be Category:Kipchak languages. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it has been not. We are not linguist at all. I, as a speaker of this language, disagree with it. The situation of this language is not clear!!!! Maybe you hear "it's a dialect" from somewhere and act with own knowledge, this is not a solution. The language is in discussion by SIL, and they noticed that the language is different than Crimean Tatar. The discussions are in progress. Zolgoyo (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from the Savoyard state

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category Mason (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Technology articles with topics of unclear notability

Nominator's rationale: Unclear if these are needed as they aren't listed as one of the valid categories in {{Notability}}. Gonnym (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bombing of the Gaza Strip

Nominator's rationale: This category has a lot of overlap with the parent category. I think a better name would be Category:Israeli airstrikes during the Israel–Hamas war, which more closely mirrors sibling categories like Category:American airstrikes during the Syrian civil war Mason (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:3-honeycombs by order

Nominator's rationale: Mostly redirects with few unique articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American veterans activists

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories Mason (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mason, there are many types of activists beyond just advocating for "rights". With the merge, it is unclear if everyone in the category to be eliminated fits in "rights" advocacy, nor does it allow for more complete capturing of veterans activists in the future. There's also two cat scheme connections here with the current setup. Category:American veterans activists as subcat of Category:American activists and Category:American veterans' rights activists as subset of Category:Veterans' rights activists by nationality. Semper Fi! (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand all that it would be unclear, that is why I am asking. @FieldMarineDo you have any example of an American veterans activist who does not fit into the "rights" advocacy bucket? Please be specific because I don't see how they aren't fully overlapping right now. Mason (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mason, in checking the first three, I do not see the word "rights" mentioned at all. I do see advocacy mentioned. In one case I see suicide prevention, which fits with advocacy not "rights". Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bedouin businesspeople

Nominator's rationale: Not necessary to subcategorize the target category this way. Also contains only 2 articles. Gjs238 (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete, the articles are already in Category:Egyptian businesspeople and Category:Syrian businesspeople, which should suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per Marco. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't there some benefit to categorising by ethnicity and nationality? Anecdotally, every Bedouin I've ever met would say that they're a Bedouin first and their nationality second. – Joe (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge I will nominate Category:Arab businesspeople shortly because it conflates ethnicity and nationality, like so many similar categories that have been brought to CfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it conflate them or just set up a parallel scheme for ethnicity, i.e. Category:Businesspeople by ethnicity? Do you also object to Category:African-American businesspeople and Category:Jewish businesspeople? – Joe (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Jewish businesspeople is a recreation of a previously deleted category, so it is at least controversial. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      But it exists now. And Nyttend recently declined a CSD nom with this enlightening edit summary: We're no longer in the same situation as before — the recent "keep" for Jews by occupation (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 26) means that there's recent support for categories of this type, and speedy-deleting just this one would be absurd. I don't have a dog in this fight, but wouldn't it make sense to establish a consensus for or against categories by ethnicity, rather than seeking to delete individual ones here and there? – Joe (talk) 11:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain I can list quite a few reasons for this: Bedouins have a distinct cultural, historical, and social identity within the Arab world. Merging their category into a general "Arab businesspeople" category could be seen as diluting the unique aspects of their cultural heritage. A specific category helps represent their unique challenges and contributions which might not be adequately covered. The Bedouin community has a history of nomadic trade and business practices that differ significantly from other Arab groups. A specific category preserves this historical context. Bedouins have distinct social structures and community dynamics that influence their business practices. Specific business strategies, success stories and challenges faced by Bedouin businesspeople can be studied with the help of a dedicated category. For cultural studies research, having a specific category can help in drawing more nuanced conclusions about the Bedouin way of life and their integration into modern economies. Furthermore, Wikipedia claims to be an inclusive platform representing diverse perspectives and communities. This category aligns with the principle of giving minority groups adequate representation. Merging the category marginalizes the Bedouin community within the larger Arab context.--Simxaraba (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of this addresses the small size of the category, and this is just WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several more businessmen that are notable enough to be written about. Just because the category is small at the moment doesn't mean there aren't more. Simxaraba (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge? Delete? Keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge

Gjs238 (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will note that the originally proposed merge target has been deleted following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 7#Category:Arab businesspeople.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:4-polytope stubs

Nominator's rationale: A small 26-page stub category on a niche topic. Consider also checking if articles are directly in Category:4-polytopes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reginar Brussels

Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination of a category which was discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 16#History of Brussels by period but was never tagged; I have no opinion on whether this should happen or not. Pinging Marcocapelle. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palestinian bedouins

Nominator's rationale: Effectively redundant. Will require manual addition of parent categories to the target, for it is a downmerge. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Joe's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Joe's newer comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brainwashing theory proponents

Nominator's rationale: Whatever the difference is supposed to be between these two categories is beyond me. As far as I can tell, both categories are about people notable for writing works promoting the legitimacy of the sociological concept of brainwashing/mind control (which are more or less the same thing). This just seems like a slightly less neutral version of the other category made by a banned sock. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same question: merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean delete, but only mildly. Mason (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games with expansion packs

Nominator's rationale: Last year, on May 7, 2023. A similar category "Video games with downloadable content" was deleted, and expansion packs are pretty much the same as downloadable content. In turn, this category is probably non-defining. Expansion packs are as common as DLC, and are essentially the same. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd agree with the nominator - having an expansion pack does not always modify the base game, so it's hard to call it a defining feature. Categories should be defining aspects of the subject, not something tangential. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose because there are several other potentially non defining categories like "Video games with alternate versions" that I would have put under discussion in the same nomination or whatever. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am going to note that nom is QuantumFoam66.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator's objection seems bizarre. They can just make a followup nom. Mason (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Museum collections

More nominations
Nominator's rationale: Subcategories of Category:Museum collections for individual museums currently use a mixture of the styles "Collection of [the Foo Museum]" and "Collections of [the Foo Museum]". I propose to standardize to "Collection", singular, as that seems more logical; the article Collection (museum) mostly refers to a museum as having a "collection" as opposed to "collections", plural – although "Very large museums will often have many sub-collections, each with its own criteria for collecting. A natural history museum, for example, will have mammals in a separate collection from insects." Even in those cases, though, it's still idiomatic to refer to the collection of, say, the British Museum – see this Ngram. Ham II (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is indeed correct to use a plural categroy name when a museum has multiple named collections, often each with their own subcategory. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As Andy. Collections in plural (for all but the smallest museums) is correct. Especially for our use, where we regularly have subcategories to more specific collections. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the reasons expressed above. I think it would be better to standardize using "Collections", since it is not uncommon for museums to have multiple collections. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and standardize 'Collections' per Sgconlaw. For example, I often refer to Wikipedia's topic collections and not overall 'collection of articles'. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support I'm very puzzled by these opposes - most from people not known for activity in this area. To "standardize using "Collections", since it is not uncommon for museums to have multiple collections" is just NOT an option, as many museums don't have multiple named options. We can indeed use named subcategories though pretty few museum categories actually do so - one exception is Category:British Library. We normally sub-categorize by type of object, area they are from etc. You will very very rarely hear museum people talk about "our collections" rather than "our collection". If, like me, you work a lot in this area, including categories, it is a complete pain to have to keep experimenting to see which form is used by us. Johnbod (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnbod, that sounds like an argument against the proposal to make everything match. The British Library has many collections, so it should stay at Category:British Library collections (in the plural), and museums that only have one collection should use the singular. Do you really want Category:British Library collections to be renamed to the singular? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, for consistency, which is important here. Alternatively the intermediate Category:British Library collections could just be cut out, and the 15 named collection sub-cats just come off the main BL category. But that will rather mess up parent categories like, in this case Category:Manuscripts by collection. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I intend to look at library collections in another nomination. With museums that could be said to have multiple collections, it's better to subdivide by object type and/or the geographical area where the objects are from, rather than by discrete sub-collection, and for the most part that's what we do. There is the added complication of several museums having multiple locations, and that is something that does show up in categorization. But we don't tend to have the equivalent of Category:Burney Collection and Category:Harleian Collection within Category:British Library collections for museums. Ham II (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, will take Johnbod's word for this when it comes to museum information. I personally use 'collection' when discussing Wikipedia ("Wikipedia's spaceflight collection", etc.) but that's a personal choice. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • support like Johnbod, i'm confused about the opposition here. his argument makes sense to me. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 07:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It would be clearer (and more in-line with usual category naming schemes) to have these categories titled as Category:Items Objects in the collection of Foo Museum. But I'm not sure it's a net benefit with the increased wordiness. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC), 12:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Objects" is the correct term, used by museums themselves. "Items" is actually a good deal less clear and adds nothing. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the correction. I'm not familiar with the exact wording, but you probably get my intent. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Johnbod: what is your opinion about Category:Objects of Foo Museum? It seems to me that most articles are about an object rather than about a collection. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Certainly they mostly are (though again, the British Library has some about actual collections), but I don't really see the need. "Collection of ..." seems very readily comprehensible. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • If we were to go with "Objects" it should be "Objects in the Foo Museum", not "Objects of the Foo Museum", for consistency with subcategories; "Paintings of", "Drawings of" and "Photographs of" would sound like depictions of the buildings.

          I don't think "Objects" is ideal for art collections. "Collection(s)" is more all-encompassing; we just need to pick a side on the question of singular versus plural. It's the categories, rather than the articles, that are about a collection – which is an argument for "Collection" being in the singular in each category name. Ham II (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion on the objects suggestion would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Collection', per Ham. Museums collect and build collections, and then they either display the diverse works and objects collected or store them. Works differ from objects in important ways, although both are included in institutional collections. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For what its worth I'm also a museum professional and frequently talk about the Collections in plural, in a situation where the term refers to all the things in museum institution. I can see a situation where where there is a subcategory of the above naming e..g 'Archaeology collection of...' or 'Natural Sciences collection of...' where the singular makes more sense. But for these broad, high level categories I prefer plural. Personal take. Zakhx150 (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Museums. Ham II (talk) 06:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Came here from aforementioned notification (thank you!). I don't think this is a situation where it can be standardized because the situation of the Met or the British Museum is very different to that of a small museum with one collection. The collections are within the broader collection, yes, but purely singular won't work if there isn't the option for both. Star Mississippi 13:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the response. If one can say "the collections are within the broader collection" then collection in the singular is acceptable, though. The Met's webpage for searching its holdings is titled "The Met Collection" and the British Museum's is titled "Explore the collection". It would seem that purely singular is viable for both larger and smaller institutions, and purely plural works less well for the smaller ones. Ham II (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kingdom Hearts original characters

Nominator's rationale: Over 100 characters from various animated Disney movies, were removed from "Kingdom Hearts characters" about 1 or 2 years ago, also that category contains only 1 article. Also, we have to add an explanation to that category after the merge, since then it would only be for original characters. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Kingdom Hearts characters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1370 in Brussels

Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated single-article categories, not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:1511 in Brussels.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century feminists

Nominator's rationale: There is no need to have an intersection between political orientation and century. Mason (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a defining characteristic of the individuals named. One reason there are so few is that the social cost of being an overall true feminist in the 1800s, and not only those who supported the vote, was substantial. Rarity does not mean it isn't a viable topic, just the opposite. That same rarity makes these individuals even more unique in their approach and support of their fellow women. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is saying rarity is not defining. I don't think having an isolated category is helpful here. How would the keeps feel about an alternative name that doesn't include century? Like Early feminists or premodern feminists? Mason (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just added another entry, this is a defining category. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, but @Randy Kryn, do you have suggestions that could avoid using the term century? The challenge with 19th-century, is that is that there is only 1 century. The norm is to not create 20th or 21st century for activists, so an alternative name would be extremely helpful. Mason (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. '19th-century' seems fine as a historical era-descriptor. The concept of 19th century feminists is interesting and descriptive. 18th century feminists may be a good essential category as well, tracking encyclopedically the "early" progress and social instinct of activist women such as Mary Wollstonecraft. 20th and 21st century would be a very full list, so they could be created or not. But 19th century notables, yes, it works on several levels. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Counts of Geneva

Nominator's rationale: delete, the category consists of two very different sets of medieval ruling counts of Geneva, who are already in Category:House of Geneva and for early modern members of the House of Savoy for whom this was merely an empty title. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't believe the above summary to be quite right. Several members of the house of Savoy enjoyed practical control over the county and they are not going to be recorded in 'house of Geneva'. There is also the house of Thoire that controlled the county briefly in the late medieval period who presently lack articles but would be members of the category if they didn't. Moreover even after the city of Geneva slipped from their grasp (they maintained control of other parts of the county such as Annecy) the county remained prominent among their titulary (several of the sons of the dukes of Nemours were called the prince de Genevois until the death of their fathers) and is featured in the leading sentences of many of the articles. sovietblobfish (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree some form of re-allocation needs to happen from Jacques on down. Especially given the county was raised to a duchy by the duke of Savoy in 1564. Perhaps they should be migrated to a category called something like 'Prince de Genevois' or 'Prince of the Genevois'. sovietblobfish (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course members of the house of Savoy enjoyed practical control over the county because it was part of the Savoyard state and the rulers of the latter were the ones enjoying practical control. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      At times yes, however the county (-1564 duchy) was under the authority of the cadet branch Savoie-Nemours for the majority of the 16th century and parts of the 17th century, and they were primarily French princes.
      Irrespective of whether they or the dukes of Savoy enjoyed practical control, this surely challenges the notion that it was an 'empty title' and it is therefore meaningful to keep it. sovietblobfish (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Villains in mythology and legend

Nominator's rationale: As far as I know, "villain" is usually used in a literary context. We typically use "evil" to describe malevolent gods and there is already such a category called Category:Evil deities, making this redundant and pointless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This category is not restricted to gods or goddesses. This is supposed to be a counterpart to Category:Heroes in mythology and legend, and just as there are plenty of folklore heroes, there are folklore villains too. AHI-3000 (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (oppose), as the old saying goes, not all mythological villains are evil gods but all mythological evil gods are villains. In other words, villains and gods do not necessarily travel in the same boat (Much ado about godding?). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Decades in the Colony of Virginia

Nominator's rationale: Redundant categoey lay Mason (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Implement Gonnym's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is @Gonnym willing to fix the template? Mason (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that isn't an issue. Ping me if this closes with that result. Gonnym (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Gonnym or someone else is willing to fix the template, I'm fine with keeping the category. Mason (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Irish blind musicians

Nominator's rationale: Only nationality category in Category:Blind musicians. Seems like an unnecessary intersection between nationality, musicians, and disability. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will note that item 2 in the proposal is to merge the harpists category into the musicians category, but item 1 is to merge the musicians category elsewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British companies established in 1706

Nominator's rationale: Template:British companies established in the year only works for companies established after the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707 * Pppery * it has begun... 00:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Biological literature by Janet Frost

Nominator's rationale: Categories contain two non-notable dissertations that are going to soon be deleted. User who created these has been also indeffed for multiple reasons, including COI and hoax creation. Sgubaldo (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_24&oldid=1236625156"