Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 21: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 42: Line 42:
:'''Oppose all:''' While only containing one article (for years 1915, 1917, 1942 & 1943) they are part of a category series, ''Years in multi-sport events,'' and hence should be kept; along with "1904 in multi-sport events" which also has only one article (about the Olympic Games). [[User:Hugo999|Hugo999]] ([[User talk:Hugo999|talk]]) 04:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
:'''Oppose all:''' While only containing one article (for years 1915, 1917, 1942 & 1943) they are part of a category series, ''Years in multi-sport events,'' and hence should be kept; along with "1904 in multi-sport events" which also has only one article (about the Olympic Games). [[User:Hugo999|Hugo999]] ([[User talk:Hugo999|talk]]) 04:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
* '''Procedural oppose''', there is no point in randomly picking one year in the middle of the tree of [[:Category:Multi-sport events by year]]. I would be open to a batch nomination of all years until 1950. Also it should be merging to decade categories instead of deletion. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 07:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
* '''Procedural oppose''', there is no point in randomly picking one year in the middle of the tree of [[:Category:Multi-sport events by year]]. I would be open to a batch nomination of all years until 1950. Also it should be merging to decade categories instead of deletion. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 07:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
*'''Procedural oppose for this and other years''' (noms above). At worst these should be merged to the decade category. These were events during World Wars, when most people were distracted by war and international sporting events were hard to stage. [[User:Peterkingiron|Peterkingiron]] ([[User talk:Peterkingiron|talk]]) 19:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


==== Category:Fictional rope fighters ====
==== Category:Fictional rope fighters ====

Revision as of 19:35, 25 December 2023

< December 20
December 22 >

December 21

Category:Recurring sporting events established in 1862

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 page in this category. Let'srun (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1943 in multi-sport events

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 page in this category. Let'srun (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, there is no point in randomly picking one year in the middle of the tree of Category:Multi-sport events by year. I would be open to a batch nomination of all years until 1950. Also it should be merging to decade categories instead of deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1942 in multi-sport events

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 page in this category. Let'srun (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, there is no point in randomly picking one year in the middle of the tree of Category:Multi-sport events by year. I would be open to a batch nomination of all years until 1950. Also it should be merging to decade categories instead of deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Marco. Also deleting doesn't help, they should be merged. Mason (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1915 in multi-sport events

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 page in this category. Let'srun (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, there is no point in randomly picking one year in the middle of the tree of Category:Multi-sport events by year. I would be open to a batch nomination of all years until 1950. Also it should be merging to decade categories instead of deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1917 in multi-sport events

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 category Let'srun (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all: While only containing one article (for years 1915, 1917, 1942 & 1943) they are part of a category series, Years in multi-sport events, and hence should be kept; along with "1904 in multi-sport events" which also has only one article (about the Olympic Games). Hugo999 (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, there is no point in randomly picking one year in the middle of the tree of Category:Multi-sport events by year. I would be open to a batch nomination of all years until 1950. Also it should be merging to decade categories instead of deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose for this and other years (noms above). At worst these should be merged to the decade category. These were events during World Wars, when most people were distracted by war and international sporting events were hard to stage. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional rope fighters

Nominator's rationale: There's no real life category equivalent and this seems like something the (now-banned) creator made up. I think we can agree that the characters are technically melee weapon users, but this is an arbitrary categorization. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional pankration practitioners

Nominator's rationale: Obscure and unnecessary category made by a blocked user. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure if the target is fitting. If not, it would be a plain deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the three articles mention "pankration" or "wrestling". It is also possible that some of the other entries in Category:Fictional wrestlers need to be purged. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per LaundryPizza. A quick Google isn't turning up any reliable sources which support any of these characters practicing pankration, so I don't even think it could be included in their articles if we wanted to Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Immigrants to British North America

Nominator's rationale: Not a helpful distinction for immigration, this BNA describes a bundle of territories that were still british after 1782, but it isn't defining in and of itself. If kept, it should be a container category Mason (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlastertalk 22:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Marcocapelle. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Omnis Scientia@Marcocapelle, How do you feel about containerizing the category. My concern is that pages are being placed by JPL in the category at the expense of more specific intersections. I'm fine with keeping it as long as its containerized. Mason (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I have no objection to diffusion to more specific colonies. I am not sure though if we can fully diffuse, let's just wait and see. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mason, it would be complicated to divide them, now that I think about it. British North America was what the collection of colonies were referred to post-American Revolutionary Wars so I would say keep the categories as are. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, but people weren't defined as being British North American, they were defined by a specific colony. Mason (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison, that is true. But I see the Category:Immigrants to British North America as the same as I see Category:Immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies. That is they were both collections of colonies and people did immigrate to those places. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would encourage you to look at how Category:Immigrants to British North America is being used at the moment. Mason (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison, fair enough. But it seems to be part of a bigger problem with Category:People of British North America and Category:British North America. So I think that needs to be addressed first before we can be able to address this one. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NoCopyrightSounds artists

Nominator's rationale: Category has become infected with redirects of non-notable music artists to the record label or other locations. Even with the removal of the redirects from the category, the articles that remain are not enough to hold this category together. Jalen Folf (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have removed all of the redirects, leaving 8 articles. That's enough for a general-purpose category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlastertalk 22:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. So, the category is no longer "infected". As for the second part of the nominator's rationale, the articles that remain are not enough to hold this category together - I think 8 articles are enough. Doesn't seem to be the case of WP:OVERCAT. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organizations associated with cervical cancer

Nominator's rationale: Seems like a fairly restrictive category with limited growth potential. We have no comparable "by organ" classification of cancer organizations. Pichpich (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st-century women politicians from insular areas of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer. First I've ever seen a Puerto Rico category not just be a direct subcat of a US cat. Not sure I see a point where this layer would ever be useful in any category given how few inhabited territories the US holds. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was addressing the underlined part of your comment where you stated "The good and usual practice for categories for Puerto Rico and other People from dependent territories with comparable status is to parent them to a state and territory or a insular areas category". That is, my position is that parenting to the "by insular area of the United States" tree is the correct way to parent US territories, and not parenting to the categories using the format "by state of territory of the United States" (which you seem to be partly proposing). My reasoning is based on the fact that insular areas are separate areas from the "US proper" areas (the States); thus parenting Category:21st-century women politicians from insular areas of the United States directly under the US category is wrong because it implies these women are American women, when they are not: they may be American citizens, but the category names doesn't use the word "citizens" at all, so it's ambiguos both ways (1) to delete it and place it as a direct subcat of a US cat (as the nominator is proposing), and is also ambiguos to (2) merge it into a cat of the format Category:21st-century American women politicians by state or territory because that would still not remove the ambiguity that women in the territories aren't Americans. (See here for a proposal to rename a "by state" category into a "by state or territory" category.) This would create "competing" tree category named "Foo by state or territory" when there already exist the properly named tree categories of "Foo by state of the United States" and "Foo by insular area of the United States" to take care of both, the US states and the US territories (aka, US insualr areas).
I would say delete per nom. The category is already part of Category:21st-century politicians from insular areas of the United States. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is nothing redundant about this layer. There are numerous instances of trees with Puerto Rico categories (and the other insular area categories for that matter, such as USVI, and American Samoa) that are not a direct subcat under a US cat. Some are:

and they are all subcats of parent categories in a format other than under a US category. Mercy11 (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cajun writers

Nominator's rationale: I don't think that this intersection is defining. There is a page on Louisiana literature, but after looking through the people in the category only Barry Jean Ancelet was described in the lead as "Cajun" writing professional. Mason (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zookeepers from Oklahoma

Nominator's rationale: Only two category entries, both of which are redirects; likely not a defining characteristic ForsythiaJo (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2021 in British technology

Nominator's rationale: I don't envision this intersection ever becoming useful. WP:OCYEAR / WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge for now, without objection to recreate the category when it can be sufficiently populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Technology is often not specific to one country. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African-American players of American football

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:EGRS. The rationale is the same as the recently deleted Category:African-American basketball players (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_2#Category:African-American_basketball_players). For the vast majority of African-American players of American or Canadian football, their ancestry is not cited in reliable sources and is not defining. The articles Black players in professional American football and History of African Americans in the Canadian Football League exist which detail how this has changed over time, which is a much better way of doing so than this category. User:Namiba 16:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. As I've pointed out in that nom, I think that this entire chain of nom's is problematic. The argument of "their ancestry is not cited in reliable sources and is not defining", while being a black american in the united states is still very much defining. At the very least, these pages need to be upmerged to the American players category instead of deleted. Mason (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Mason. Also, as I have repeated before, the POINT of these categories is to help with navigation and keep categories from getting too big. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are other means to diffuse large categories that are more pertinent, such as club, position, league, period etc. Guideline WP:FINALRUNG explicitly advises against using ethnicity as a means of diffusion (you should diffuse a large category by ethnicity if is it not already diffused by another non-EGRS characteristic). Place Clichy (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If reliable sources don't indicate someone's ethnicity, religion, sexuality, etc, then it is extremely irresponsible to put them into categories to which there is no proof they belong. It flies in the face of WP:BLP and WP:V, two core guidelines of Wikipedia. "I think they're X" is not a reasonable standard but that is how the vast majority of these articles are categorized.--User:Namiba 15:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. In most cases, players are placed in this category not because they are commonly and consistently called African American football players by reliable sources, but by face test. Place Clichy (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nigeria-documentary-film-stub

Nominator's rationale: Template of unclear necessity. Across the board, the only countries that have their own "Country-documentary-film-stub" templates are ones (Australia, Canada, France, UK, US) where there are enough documentary film stubs from that country to populate a dedicated category for them -- any country that doesn't have at least 60 articles to fill a category just applies "country-film-stub" and "documentary-film-stub" as two separate templates rather than getting its own special merged one.
In actual practice, the only thing this is really accomplishing is making a handful of Nigerian documentary films impossible to stub-sort for decade: it throws articles directly into Category:Documentary film stubs, but I can't get them moved to Category:2010s documentary film stubs or Category:2020s documentary film stubs since it's adding them to the base category by means of a template I can't add the decade to.
So with just eight films using this, the combination of "Nigeria-film-stub" and "(Decade)-documentary-film-stub" is perfectly adequate, and a dedicated "Nigeria-documentary-film-stub" template isn't necessary until such time as there are 60 articles to populate a full-on "Nigerian documentary film stubs" category. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional eyepatch wearers

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining. Mason (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CATDEF. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it defining? Because I don't think that most people are defined by wearing a eyepatch. They might be defined by what causes them to wear an eyepatch (that they have some sore of visual impairment. I don't think that this works the same way that an assistive device like a wheelchair user would be.) Mason (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that it's a quite noticeable feature. I can tell at least that in the case of Walter Martínez, the person who I created the category for, it is quite iconic and it's arguably the only person in the country known for wearing one. You make a good point, regardless. --NoonIcarus (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Eyepatches are not a fashion statement, they are a defining characteristic of fictional characters and real people. It is often due to a disability, whether temporary or permanent, and becomes a part of them. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that disability is defining, but an eyepatch is not a disability. If it is disability related, then they can be categorized as having a disability. Mason (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wanted to note this suggestion by the OP, where the categories could be merged into that of blind people or other disabilities. --NoonIcarus (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am inclined to support the nomination after I read a few articles and I have not come across any references to reliable sources regarding this characteristic. After all, a defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Manner of dress is not defining. Having one eye might be, but you don't need an eyepatch for that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Eyepatch wearers to Category:People missing an eye, and merge Category:Fictional eyepatch wearers to Category:Fictional characters missing an eye (which seems to overlap with this category). AHI-3000 (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would oppose that, e.g. the article Maxie Anderson does not mention anything about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: Regardless of that, I would think that someone's lack of an eye or any other organ is a defining trait, while an article of clothing is not. AHI-3000 (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article about Mother Angelica also doesn't mention anything about it, the claim that this is a defining characteristic is just plain wrong. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm sure both categories could use some trimming to make sure they only contain articles which make it clear that the eyepatch is defining of that person/character, but I see enough examples which do include that clarity that should make both categories still valid. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DaniloDaysOfOurLives's explanation. Dimadick (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional disabled characters in soap operas

  • Propose splitting:
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge as this intersection between disability, fictional character, and medium of fiction is not defining Mason (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know this reminds me of how Category:Video game characters has a very large amount of subcategories, many of which are like "Fictional X in video games". And I think many of them are not even necessary at all. AHI-3000 (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If merged, only merge to Category:Fictional characters with disabilities because the articles are already in Category:Soap opera characters by series. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You want to merge the category to itself? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Overcategorization, we do not need 3 way intersections for everything. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose/keep - I understand the rational, however, disabled characters in soap operas (both as a group and individually) are regularly discussed and reported about in reliable independent sources, which is why I made an individual category for disabled characters in soap operas. I am happy to provide sources, but it basically boils down to the fact that soap operas are meant to be representative of real life due to being contemporary and having a large range of characters, and sometimes the portrayal is received positively but also sometimes negatively. Additionally, it says "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where possible" in the Fictional Disabled characters category, and this is an appropriate subcategory. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what you mean by "disabled characters in soap operas (both as a group and individually) are regularly discussed and reported about in reliable independent sources"? Do you mean that the characters themselves are discussed? Or do you mean that there's literature on the phenomenon of disability representation in soap operas? Mason (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both - both the individual characters AND representation of disabilities in soap operas in general, both about characters and the portrayers. That is why I am also currently working on an article about it too. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please point to some literature that supports this statement? I would find that extremely compelling that the intersection isn't trivial. Mason (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per DaniloDaysOfOurLives's explanation. Dimadick (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Preserved beam engines

  • Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: Raising on behalf of Globbet who wasn't sure about starting this discussion themselves. Please reply to them, not me. "The rationale is that the present subdivision is unnecessary and unhelpful. By the nature of the subject, the overall size of the category can never grow much larger." - RichT|C|E-Mail 14:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In what way is this 'unhelpful'? Why is 'can never grow much larger' relevant? Are we to delete Category:Continents too?
Category:Preserved stationary steam engines is a tiny fraction of what it could be, potentially huge, and I fail to see why any subcateorization of it is now a problem? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Potential size: the number of notable preserved stationary steam engines is not so big. Where are all these surviving but derelict beam engines?
Unhelpful:
(a) Unnecesarily small subcats make an overview more difficult and make the user do unnecessary work. They are ergonomically suboptimal. If you want to use subcats to distingush types, then a list might be a better approach.
(b) Having a subcat for one particular configuration is not logical (except perhaps on the grounds of population size). Why not have subcats for other equally valid and distinctive configurations such as horizontal, vertical, and inverted vertical? Well, because they would be too small to be anything other than a navigational nuisance.
Comparison: I don't think Continents is a subcat, and I could offer a reductio ad absurdum too, but won't bother. Globbet (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure what was in this category when it was originally nominated but it is now well populated. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- The scope of the two is in practice probably much the same. I do not think that there are a great many more. Most of these are in UK. Possibly sibling categories may be needed one day, or we might one day want to split out horizontal engines. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nominated category now contains 39 articles and 1 subcategory.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Autosomal monosomies and deletions

Nominator's rationale: Full autosomal monosomy (losing an entire chromosome other than X or Y) is not survivable and, therefore, we don't have any articles on it. All the articles in this category are partial chromosome deletions, sometimes termed partial monosomies, but since the words are synonymous in how they are used it would be less confusing just to refer to them as deletions, and consistent with the other category, Category:Autosomal duplications‎ for duplications of genetic material. (t · c) buidhe 08:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:County commissioners in Maryland

Nominator's rationale: Many of Maryland's larger counties have county councils instead of county boards of commissioners. Therefore, this category should be renamed to reflect that. A full list of counties that use county councils can be found here: https://www.mdcounties.org/DocumentCenter/View/2967/2-Co-Government-Structure-updated-October-2018?bidId Y2hyaXM (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the siblings all share the same names. Category:County_commissioners_in_the_United_States Mason (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Serb diaspora sportspeople

Nominator's rationale: Current name is unclear/confusing. Modeling the rename off of this category: People of Serbian descent by occupation Mason (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is against the status quo; merge or rename/purge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlastertalk 15:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Category:Serbian emigrants selectively, because some may already be in more precise categories such as Category:Serbian expatriate sportspeople or a child. Indeed if sportspeople self-identify as Serbs then they should be placed in the appropriate Serb/Serbian sportspeople category, but if they don't then I doubt that having a Serb name and practicing sports (any sport) somewhere outside of Serbia is a good topic for a category. Place Clichy (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Possible future wars

Nominator's rationale: Delete for the same reason as the former Category:Hypothetical events - Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL, and calling these wars "possible things that will happen in the future" is speculating in a manner that is against Wikipedia policy, even if you yourself may think they will. Policy says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." These wars are far from certain, and will continue to be unless it actually breaks out. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's no telling how World War III may even begin. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlastertalk 15:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The category currently holds 3 articles: WW3, Chinese unification & its epon cat, and an obsolete British publication. This is not a useful selection for navigation. There are already links about Chinese military goals in the WW3 article; that suffices. – Fayenatic London 12:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Immigrants to British Hong Kong

Nominator's rationale:Overlapping category where the intersection isn't defining, there's no need to split category by which nation was in control of hong kong Mason (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the concept of migrants is only meaningful if there is a Hong Kong country border to cross, which is currently no longer the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So are you arguing for a downmerge or a deletion instead then? I'm confused. Mason (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlastertalk 15:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Festivals in Chile by year

Nominator's rationale: A tree of sub-categories each each with one article. Upmerge respectively. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Festivals in Colombia by year

Nominator's rationale: With just one year in the Category:Festivals in Colombia by year and only one article in that category, the tree is not needed (at least at the moment). Upmerge to Category:2008 in Colombia and Category:2008 festivals in South America. Note that a merge to Category:Festivals in Colombia is not needed since the lone article is already in that tree. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish sportspeople

Nominator's rationale: I'm in favor of keeping this category as part of Category:Jewish sportspeople. For full disclosure, I created it today, unaware that it had been deleted per recent discussion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
Oppose Hi @Place Clichy, I created the category. Let me explain my reasoning. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy, of course there isn't such a thing as Jewish ice hockey but Jewish people do play ice hockey and hence are Jewish sportspeople. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy, pinging you.
I have NOW read the previous discussion which was split between "keep" and "delete". As I also note, the person who started that Cfd did so under the guise that it was about religion, not ethnicity. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted in the speedy discussion, OF COURSE there isn't such a thing as Jewish ice hockey. But Jewish ice hockey players exist and they would be in Category:Jewish sportspeople.
I'm also in favor of keeping Category:Jewish American ice hockey players because its part of Category:Jewish American sportspeople and many American sportspeople are categorized by ethnicity AND sports. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, @Smasongarrison.
Given this is part of a larger discussion: sportspeople include athletes of different sports, broadcasters, executives, etc. There HAS to be further categorization in this regard. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivial intersection between ethnicity and occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It probably helps with diffusion to break it up by sport. Mason (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle, then what's the point of having Category:Jewish sportspeople if you can't divide by sports? As @Smasongarrison points out (and you actually agreed with this on a seperate discussion) it helps with diffusion and navigation. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point is that you can navigate to lots of other sporters who are in that category because of their Jewishness. (Whether you'd actually find some useful information about "Jewish sports" in these articles is another question.) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Marcocapelle, I thought the point WAS to help with and make navigation easier (genuinely asking, not trying to snarky).
      And if I am allowed to add something personal, as someone interested in sports and its history, I have found that people within the Jewish community DO seek out Jewish athletes simply because they are Jewish, out of pride. So that is also part of why I would like to keep it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Would like to add that if NOT kept, the categories should be UPMERGED to their respective parent categories rather than deleted.
      Personally, I don't like the argument that Place Clichy used. I'm sure it was not their intent but it just seemed rather crass to me given that Category:Jewish sportspeople is pretty self-explanatory. "Jewish sports" is obviously not a thing but Jewishness IS a distinct identity and Jewish sportspeople exist. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point of WP:EGRS is exactly to prevent these trivial intersections of two topics that each have a justifiable category tree of their own. And Wikipedia is not here to serve national or ethnic pride, there are other websites for that. See also WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The whole point of categories is that you can easily find more information about a broader topic, not to create lists. I do agree with merging instead of deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G4 and WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 24 § Category:Jewish chess players. This category was deleted on 4 November of this year. It defeats the purpose of having deletion discussions if, right after they are closed, an editor creates the category again and discusses its merits again at CfD, in hope of a different result. Place Clichy (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Place Clichy, that would not apply to Category:Jewish American ice hockey players because that is part of Category:Jewish American sportspeople and wasn't discussed in any Cfd as far as I am aware. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is partly why I brought it to Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And as I explained on my talk page to you and as I began here: I was not aware of the previous discussion. @Place Clichy, if you wish, please go ahead and delete those categories per WP:G4. Next time, I will be more careful. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Place Clichy, I've added "delete by author" tag onto the pages you have mentioned but not to the ones on Cfd (@Marcocapelle knows about the discussion of categorization in Category:Jewish sportspeople by gender over here; whoever added Category:Jewish martial artists forgot to add the two gender categories which got left behind. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The relationship with parent Category:Jewish sportspeople was in fact discussed during the deletion discussion. Suggesting that some things could have been said differently at the time of the discussion so it's OK to create the category kinda defeats the purpose of WP:G4 and holding CfD discussions at all. That discussion was originally for mere deletion rather than upmerge to Category:Jewish sportspeople, and that specific point was not challenged.
    If I have to guess an interpretation of why deletion was preferred to upmerge, I would say that the main rationale was that the link between these specific sports and being Jewish was deemed to be trivial, and therefore the link between being sportspeople and being Jewish can't be considered defining for these specific individuals. Note that WP:DEFINE (which is kinda the essential principle of all the categorization guidelines) affects whether an article has its place in a given category, rather than being about the category. A category can be a defining characteristic for some articles but not others, even though they seem prima facie to check the description. That's an ambiguity I frequently see in category discussions. @Marcocapelle: that's also an answer to your argument above that As long as that category exists, it is still an appropriate merge target. Place Clichy (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Place Clichy, very well. You can deal with the rest as you want BUT Category:Jewish American ice hockey players does not fall under WP:G4 as it was never discussed in Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:G4 applies. It says: "This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies." As the November 2023 discussion established that the relationship between being Jewish and ice hockey is trivial, the link between being Jewish, American and ice hockey is equally trivial per the same expressed consensus. They are sufficiently identical copies in substance. You need a reversal of consensus to prove otherwise, or at the very least provide at least one single argument why American Jews would be something special in ice hockey that non-American Jews are not. Place Clichy (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Place Clichy, I will manually merge it with Category:Jewish American sportspeople and delete it as the author. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Israeli sentiment

Nominator's rationale We already have a category for opposition to Israel, which is the anti-Zionism category. This new anti-Israeli sentiment category is superfluous. What is the difference exactly between anti-Zionist and anti-Israel sentiment? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom AHI-3000 (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
-Zionism: a Jewish-only idea for a Jewish state that only talks about Jews in the geographical Jewish homeland. Rejection of this Jewish-only idea: Anti-Zionist.
-Israel: A multidiverse country in today's world, which primarily has nothing to do with religion, where people of different origins live together side by side. It guarantees freedom for everyone.
When you say: "I am against Zionists and Zionism", you are for example not addressing the Christians, Muslims and atheists who are Israeli citizens. When you advocate the destruction of all of Israel and its society, you don’t mention the religious element and therefore also address every Israeli citizen including the Muslims, Christians, Atheists and anyone who is not a Jew or who does not identify as a Zionist. Rejection Israel as what it is today and all of its society: Anti-Israeli sentiment. You couldn’t include Adolf Hitler into this for example. Another example is the BDS-movement, which definitely turns against Israel, but I wouldn’t call it an Anti-Zionist organisation. Furthermore (Anti-)Zionism is way older than the country of Israel as we know it today.

The topic is complicated, but there are differences. A subcat of Anti-Zionism would probably be the best solution. FPSalman (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Critisizing Israel and/or even being against its actions (aka anti-Isreal sentiment) is not the same as being anti-Zionist. You can fully support the idea that Jewish people deserve to have a country, and fully belive that Isreal in its current form is not a good country. As such, those to topics, while connected, are not the same. Isreal is a country that exists since 1948. Zionist movement existed for centuries.Artemis Andromeda (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Criticizing Israel and its policies is not "anti-Israeli". Israelis criticize their own government on a daily basis. Wanting a different administration in power is also not "anti-Israeli", nor is it "anti-Israeli" to want the Israeli government reformed. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zionism is not a Jewish-only idea. The majority of American Zionists are Christians. There are also many Hindu Zionists in India. Those are two examples of the many non-Jewish Zionists worldwide. Many of the "Christians, Muslims and atheists" in Israel are Arabs/Palestinians and many are anti-Zionists. The idea that people who oppose the existence of the State of Israel have some kind of animosity against the Arab/Palestinian citizens of Israel is...an interesting idea, but one I've never heard before. Israel defines itself as the Jewish state; opposition to the Jewish state (anti-Zionism) is opposition to Israel. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are your sources for all of that? How do you know that “many” of the Arabs in Israel are Anti-Zionist? How comes that so many Arabs are in the Israeli army then? How do you actually define an “Arab” in the first place? Is a person who looks “Arab” and whose both parents are Jews from Morocco not “Arab”?
"Israel defines itself as the Jewish state; …" Source?
"The idea that people who oppose the existence of the State of Israel have some kind of animosity against the Arab/Palestinian citizens of Israel…" What are you talking about?
The massive problem with you Bohemian Baltimore is that you reject Israel’s right to exist. I don’t know how valuable your statements are.FPSalman (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - anti-Israel sentiment and anti-Zionism are two seperate things. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transport disasters by decade

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. it isn't helpful for navigation to have only one category in here Mason (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Smasongarrison: you evidently intended a double merge rather than a split, so I have amended the nomination for clarity. There is a template {{cfm-double}} which you may find useful in future. – Fayenatic London 23:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Marcocapelle. – Fayenatic London 23:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, so unfortunately, the cfm-double doesn't work in twinkle. I have a request for it to be added. Mason (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Festival in Gilgit baltistan

Nominator's rationale: Correct plural, caps, & punc. Her Pegship (?) 00:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Marcocapelle. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Expatriates in British North America

Nominator's rationale: Expatriates in British North America is not defining, when there are more specific categories.Mason (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British North America comprised the colonial territories of the British Empire in North America from 1783 onwards," which I don't think is helpful as a distinction for expatriates. They should be placed in a specific colony/terrority. If kept, this category should be containerized as people don't tend to be defined as "British North American". Mason (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last contribution incorrectly describes the scope of this category, as it includes for example Category:People of the Thirteen Colonies, not just Canada after 1763 and Nova Scotia after 1740s. This presents difficulty as the 13 Colonies were British colonies in North America and there is an overlap in date between them and what became Canada. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peterkingiron I'm quoting directly from the wikipedia page on what British North America is.Mason (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, a too poorly populated category to have a difficult discussion about. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional water monsters

Nominator's rationale: Only non-diffused member, the Deep One, also lives in the sea. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should be really cautious here. Cryptid is a fringe term used by a particular subculture, from where it stems. "Legendary" is neutral and so is "monster" but the word cryptid is a real problem in Wiki-voice. No biologist or folklorist considers these often complex concepts of entities to just be 'hidden somewhere' for obvious reasons. Academics in biology and folklore studies areas reject this term and the whole concept behind it. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I initially closed this as manual merge/split. In light of User talk:Qwerfjkl#Categories: "Water monsters" to "Water cryptids" I am relisting this. Courtesty ping @Bloodofox.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I need to highlight that the word cryptid (from the pseudoscience cryptozoology) is a WP:FRINGE word that implies that a creature in fact exists and is simply waiting to be found. Mythological may not be appropriate (such creatures are found in other genres of folklore beyond myth, like legend and folktale) but monster is almost always appropriate for these entities. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, the definition of cryptid is "an animal (such as Sasquatch or the Loch Ness Monster) that has been claimed to exist". It does not imply the creature does in fact exist, only that at some point someone made the claim it did. I am simply not seeing any credence to this argument that using the word apparently promotes fringe beliefs and it is a word included in major dictionaries across the board. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for a hypothetical article, a fictional lake monster, akin to Ogopogo, Champy, Nessie, would that be a fictional sea monster? (there are many mythological river and lake monsters, and lots of fiction with monstrous beasts in such locations, such as the films Lake Placid or Anaconda) -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 05:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Discrimination in the Arab world

Nominator's rationale: Are these really distinct categories? Mason (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have tagged Category:Sexism in the Arab world, Category:Antisemitism in the Arab world, and Category:Racism in the Arab world.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlastertalk 15:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The idea that the Middle East and the Arab world are synonymous is uninformed. Turkey, Iran, and Israel are all countries in the Middle East that are not majority Arab. Furthermore, the Arab countries of the Maghreb (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya) are not Middle Eastern. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not synonymous but largely overlapping. I agree that Libya belongs to Africa rather than to the Middle East but that can be solved separately. And the proposal does not touch upon Turkey, Iran or Israël. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. The argument that Arab world and Middle East are not synonymous (which nobody would argue against) is not a reason in itself to multiply redundant overlapping geographic schemes. They don't help help navigation, and in most cases only end up in having content spread inconsistently (or reflecting a number of biases). Place Clichy (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all (expanded vote) but make sure that content about Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco is excluded. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Danish sportspeople by century

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now, as there's only one category in here, which is not helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yjere are mow three categories in there (same as for other countries).Ramblersen2 (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: in your haste to create the new categories @Ramblersen2, you made several red-linked categories . Please clean up the new categories. Mason (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the whole tree, container categories just split by gender have no added value. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Moroccan people of Jewish descent

Nominator's rationale: unnecessary layer, Category:Moroccan Jews is enough. Yorkporter (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (normally I would have said upmerge but seems not needed here). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has two sub-categories and could also be useful for non-Jewish Moroccans of Jewish descent. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of unrealized projects by artist

Nominator's rationale: As far as I can see, they're all films. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article title should be left as is, since there are categories within several articles (and in possibly upcoming articles), which not only list a director's unrealized film projects, but also ones unrealized for literature and theater. Example: Quentin Tarantino's unrealized projects#Other projects. Not to mention the countless unrealized television projects that are listed on a majority of the pages in the category. Should those listed projects should be removed from the article just because they're not "films" then? Even from an unbiased standpoint, that seems twisted. I think it's best to leave it broad. An "artists unrealized works", generally speaking. I haven't looked into if there are any articles on the subject of unpublished novels by authors, but if so, I say we add those pages to this category as well. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I misunderstood User:Clarityfiend and the proposal is not meant as a split then my alternative rename is preferable as being more concise, but I do not oppose either of the original proposals per se. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spanish people of the colonial Philippines

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category that's not helpful for navigation. I think that this is supposed to describe spanish people from the Spanish colonial Philippines. Mason (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per Marcocapelle and Mason. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional reptilians

Merge Category:Fictional reptilians to Category:Anthropomorphic reptiles
Nomimator's rationale: The term "reptilian" is rather vaguely defined by this category. It currently seems to consist primarily of articles about humanoid characters that look like reptiles. Therefore it is redundant. AHI-3000 (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I strongly oppose any weird alternative suggestions to merge or delete Category:Anthropomorphic reptiles in any way, this is one of multiple similarly named subcategories of Category:Anthropomorphic animals. AHI-3000 (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The requisite article is called "reptilian humanoid". You'd have to be successful in a move discussion to "anthropomorphic reptile" before this merge would make sense. I would, however, support a rename to Category:Fictional reptilian humanoids as fairly uncontroversial. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also support a reverse merge to the fictional reptilians category since it needs to be decided by a move discussion at the main article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What? I am not suggesting any move of the reptilian humanoid article, it's not a prerequisite to this proposal. And tell me what's the difference between "humanoid reptile" and "anthropomorphic reptile"? And if you check both of these categories, there's a lot of overlap between Category:Anthropomorphic reptiles and Category:Fictional reptilians, so I don't think there's much of a real practical difference between them. AHI-3000 (talk) 05:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that category names should match article names. I don't necessarily oppose this rename idea, but articles are moved before categories are. In other words, it's more of a procedural oppose. You'd have to successfully argue that reptilian humanoids are predominantly referred to as anthropomorphic reptiles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a separate issue that's not directly relevant to this discussion. My point is that we do not need two categories that are both about anthropomorphic/humanoid reptile characters. AHI-3000 (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, so reverse merge. The old category is more accurate to the existing title of the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't need to reverse merge anything, this nomination isn't a debate on a particular article's title. AHI-3000 (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Categories must match the title of their parent article, we don't move the category before the article, in fact the opposite. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Category:Reptilian humanoids per WP:C2D. I will tag Category:Anthropomorphic reptiles too. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Anthropomorphic reptiles is a subcategory of Category:Anthropomorphic animals, getting rid of it is counterproductive. AHI-3000 (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I see no good reason to merge or rename any category here, "reptilians" refer to a very specific UFO conspiracy type character.★Trekker (talk) 10:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure which members of this category are that "specific conspiracy type character". If there are none, I guess this is tacit support for its deletion as an unnecessary category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are mistaken, most characters in Category:Fictional reptilians category don't even have anything to do with the reptilian conspiracy theory. AHI-3000 (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have tagged Category:Anthropomorphic reptiles for merging as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Given names inspired by popular culture

Nominator's rationale: This category and its ussage is incredibly vague right now, the vast majority of them are regular names from history which simply increased in popularity due to some popular piece of media or famous person, which does not remotely seem defining to me. Names increase in popularity due to cultural events all the time, its a perfectly normal and expected phenomenon for most names. ★Trekker (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.. I’m not necessarily opposed to renaming the category but I don’t think this is necessarily the right name. There’s already a category called English given names invented by fiction writers. I was going for something that describes names that have greatly increased in usage due to its use for a single real life person or a single influential character. Names influenced by popular culture? Names that rose in usage due to popular culture? If someone can come up with a better name, please suggest one.
Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that I don't find the fact that a name has become more popular due to popular culture to be a defining characteristic, names always fluctuate in usage because of events in culture. A name might become more common in the 1800s because of a once popular novel, but 200 years later it may still be popular but not because of the book anymore. I'm sure the name Victoria became more popular because of Queen Victoria, but that doesn't mean most people who use the name now days mean to name their child after the queen or even think about her. Same with Gary (which you categorized with this category), I doubt the names continued usage is because parents all think of Gary Cooper.★Trekker (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Businesspeople from the Colony of Queensland

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge: Non-defining intersection between political regime, century, and occupation. Same logic as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_17#Category:Writers_from_the_Colony_of_Western_Australia Mason (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dual merge per nom as non-defining. It is most likely that South Australian or Queensland businesspeople had business careers that spanned several political statuses for these states. Place Clichy (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American tennis people by state

Nominator's rationale: These categories contain only a handful pages, all players. They fit better in the "players" category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The American tennis categories are a mess and this is part of trying to bring some organization to it. I was surprised there wasn't a player's category at all but players, executives, coaches, officials all jumbled into one. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: have added all states for merging: apart from a handful of non-player coaches and executives, almost entirely all of these categories are populated with players. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it would probably be helpful to start putting articles in the right category. For example in Category:Tennis people from Pennsylvania, which is not in this nomination, there are also players. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle, I am doing that currently. It will take some time. The bigger categories are a combination of coaches and players (and others) so the "people" category makes sense there (a la Category:American baseball people by state). The ones I nominated contained only players so merging makes sense. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle, okay, so what I have found is that the categories are indeed almost entirely populated with players or ex-players who eventually became coaches so I will go ahead and add the remaining categories while re-categorizing any non-player coaches and executives to the appropriate categories. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, but what technically needs to happen is re-parenting of the tennis players subcategories to sportspeople of the same state, thereafter the nominated categories can be deleted. Downmerge would result in coaches-only to be added to players categories, and that is not a desirable outcome. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle, just to clarify, the categories Category:American tennis players by state should be in Category:American sportspeople by state, correct? If so, I can do so manually. Additionally, the former categories should be in Category:Tennis in the United States by state as well.
    Also, I am already shifting through any coaches-only. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose tennis people is a parent of tennis players, just as ice hockey people is a parent of ice hockey players. As many executives, commentators etc were also players, this is a needed level of categorization.--User:Namiba 02:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not need the same level of granularity though. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Namiba, they are entirely players and very few coaches who weren't players. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Namiba, also Category:American tennis people has Category:American tennis players and Category:American tennis coaches (and this is true of almost all countries with tennis people categories) and then a cocktail of all tennis people thrown into "Tennis people by state". I created the "tennis players" categories to do just as you have suggested and found almost all were players. Additionally, this is the first step in trying to bring some organization. Please change the vote. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are 217 people in Category:American tennis coaches at the moment, many of whom were not tennis players. There are 8 articles in Category:Tennis people from Ohio. There are 11 categories in Category:Tennis people by nationality, 27 categories directly in Category:People by sport and nationality and I see no value or reason to delete only the American tennis one.--User:Namiba 18:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Namiba, you seem to misunderstand. I'm merging the Category:American tennis people by state which only contains players, with Category:American tennis players by state which I created to move all players. But I have found that if I moved all the tennis players from "people" to "state", the "tennis people by state" category will be empty except for a handful of non-coaches.
I came here because I didn't want to spend days switching categories of what were over a thousand articles. And I assure you that I'm not deleting Category:American tennis people. I'm trying bring some organization to it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, I see why @Namiba has objected. Someone has sorted out the players and moved them to the categories in Category:American tennis players by state. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Omnis Scientia: I do not see it yet. There are very few tennis people who weren't tennis players before, therefore a national level suffices for non-players. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle, I still agree. They have to go given the few who aren't are not really notable tennis people. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle, I checked the few pages that were left and most were players who were left because they were better known in another sport (I've moved them to players) or tennis executives who I've moved to Category:Tennis executives. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've created Category:American tennis coaches by state and begun populating it. Category:Tennis coaches from California has 29 articles and counting. Petscan shows that there are many more viable coaches by state categories, as one would expect for a category containing over 200 articles before subcategories.--User:Namiba 14:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Namiba, I would still have preferred that you would at least have waited for this discussion to close before you did that. Because not every state will have double digit tennis coaches. If California has 29 only then the rest will undoubtedly have a lot fewer. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Undoubtedly so but this is why it is unwise to delete Category:Tennis people from California and likely many other such categories. Doing so removes a rung of subcategories which are necessary. This all mirrors other sports and there is no reason why tennis should be treated differently.--User:Namiba 16:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I view the proposal as a downmerge for now. It's possible that we may recreate the category in the future, but it seems not helpful to keep an empty rung.
"This all mirrors other sports and there is no reason why tennis should be treated differently" well... if it works well for tennis, it could work well for other sports too. Change has to start somewhere. Mason (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases, they have been emptied out of process. I have gone back and returned several articles to their proper location, i.e. tennis people in X. I note that User:Omnis Scientia has exhibited a severe case of ownership of these categories to the point of canvassing for their deletion. See my talk page, where the user wrote "What I am trying to say is that this is my project. I started it. I created the tennis player categorization. I feel that I know more about tennis to do this. It is why I am asking you to stop. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2023 "--User:Namiba 22:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Namiba, I did not say I own the categories. You are misrepresenting what I said. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you both (and me... so we?) want what's best for the project. This will get sorted out eventually.
Re:canvasing: I'm intentionally not voting, to avoid that perception. (I did look at this category before, but didn't have strong feelings either way.) Mason (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Smasongarrison. Much appreciated.
@Namiba, I apologize. Canvasing was not my intention, I was simply trying to explain my reasoning. It is clear things got out of hand. I hope you accept my apology. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mason, that is my stance too. And to say the categories mirror other sports is VERY misleading. It does not mirror how people are categorized in other sports in the United States. Only team sports coaches have categories for MOST states. The rest are sorted into Category:American sports coaches by state. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've tagged Category:Tennis people from Oklahoma and Category:Tennis people from Pennsylvania which were missing a CfD tag.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge, and alt merge the first to Category:American tennis players by state or territory, per Category:American people by state or territory. There's no reason to leave Washington D.C. and insular areas out. Place Clichy (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Place Clichy, I will add that to speedy rename. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I get that. Do you suggest we agree in CfD for a certain target name, to immediately rename it in speedy discussion to another name? It seems more natural to immediately agree in this discussion for the good target name, provided there is consensus for it. I believe that's the case, seen the repeated consensus in CfD for names using state or territory, and the lack of voiced opposition to this individual target name so far. Place Clichy (talk) 12:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Place Clichy, there are other sports categories like this which need similar renaming so I thought it would be easier to do in speedy rename. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Forms of Hindu deities

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT. Already part of Hindu deities Cat via individual deity categories. Redtigerxyz Talk 04:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't this be relevant for someone who is specifically interested in forms? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an orthogonal subdivision to the categories about individual Hindu deities. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of the Thirteen Colonies by colony

Nominator's rationale: The names in Category:People of the Thirteen Colonies by colony should be "People from *colony name*". I have also added the parent category for renaming. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that it shoud be from *colony name* but that would imply that the categories are renamed, for example, to Category:People from the Province of Massachusetts Bay. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nom Mason (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle, you are right.
    Side note: I did suggest that format - e.g. "People from the Province of Massachusetts Bay" etc. - but someone else said that "People from colonial *name*" would be more fitting and less confusing. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: unsure about removing the disambiguator for Georgia, as the other Georgia was colonized too (by Persia, the Ottoman Empire and Russia). Maybe Category:People from Georgia (British colony). Place Clichy (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm. I don't think that the alternative fits into the format. I'd be more ok with People from the colonial Georgia (British colony), even though it's redundant, so it's clear it belongs in the same set as the other 13 colonies Mason (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Place Clichy, I assume you do agree with the name change. Just for clarification. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The present Category:People of Georgia (British colony) avoids the 'colonial colony' redundancy, and there seems to be no issue of fitting into the format. The British also colonized South Georgia, BTW. My personal inclination for the target name would be, by order of preference, 1° Category:People from Georgia (British colony) > 2° Category:People from colonial Georgia (British America) > 3° Category:People from colonial Georgia (British colony) > 4° Category:People from colonial Georgia. The second option also avoids both redundancy and ambiguity, and it fits into the format. But I would not let that stand in the way of the renaming from of... to from... @Omnis Scientia, Marcocapelle, and Smasongarrison: ping for opinion. Place Clichy (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy, I was initially in favor of using the names of the colonies i.e. "People from the Province of Massachusetts Bay" and "People from the Colony of Virginia" and so on since it leaves out any ambiguity. The category Category:People of the Province of New York is an example. That said, I worried it might make navigation harder. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removing the disambiguator entirely as in option 4 would be my least preferred choice as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think 2 or 3 would work in fitting the set without losing any information. Also to be clear, it isn't the end of the world if georgia doesn't fit nicely into the set. I think in an ideal world it would, but there are much more important aspects to a category name than matchiness. Mason (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Place Clichy, I would go with number 2 or number 3 as well. Number 2 is more preferrable though. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the Georgia category to Category:People from the Province of Georgia to match Category:Province of Georgia and Province of Georgia. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Holography in fiction

Nominator's rationale: A major problem with this category is that most, if not all of the works listed in it do not feature holography as a defining aspect of their story. They are likely better off in other categories, such as Category:Fiction about computing. I have made it a merge proposal in case there are some that are not in other categories, but in reality it's likely this category should just be purged of most if not all entries. Note: It was also made by a blocked user. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Mason (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Please check if articles are already in another subcat. No proof thus far that we have works where holography is a major theme (which would be Category:Fiction about holography). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to "Fiction about" etc., and purge if holography is not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On second though, I agree with rename and purge. HappyHolograms, a South Park episode satiriing the use of holograms in live performances, in the TV subcat is an example of a work where holography is central to the plot. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The target category is too generic to be defining of anything. It could equally well apply to stone tools. Dimadick (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chefs by ethnicity

Nominator's rationale: Only has American chefs. And merge remaining categories to parent category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If merged, it they should also be merged to their respective ethnicity. Mason (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes very good point! I will will add them. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dual merge per @Smasongarrison's suggestion and delete Category:Chefs by ethnicity. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Domestic cricket competitions in 2021

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:* Propose deleting Category:Domestic cricket competitions in 2021 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Out of synch with parent Category:Domestic cricket competitions by year which is for winter seasons only (2020–21, 2021–22, etc.). The sole entry is at WP:AFD for WP:GNG reasons. Batagur baska (talk) 06:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have notified/started a wider discussion at WT:CRIC about whether we should have season categories like these. My view is there are enough articles to populate the (northern hemisphere) summer season categories too. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn. I agree that the category should be expanded using English and Irish tournaments at least. We should look towards increasing the number of calendar year categories. Could someone please close this request? Thank you. Batagur baska (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Works by setting

Nominator's rationale: Massive duplication, especially for future dates. Setting is inherently fictional, so any instances of non-fictional subcategories such as Category:History books about the 16th century can simply be moved out. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The rationale is flawed. Setting (narrative) is clear that non-fiction narratives also have settings. Any narrative, both fiction and non-fiction, will have a setting. 4meter4 (talk) 06:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, only for fiction it is meaningful to categorize by setting. Non-fiction has its own parameters. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I’m not sold on the idea that non-fiction narratives shouldn’t be organized by setting. It’s a fundamental aspect of nonfiction short stories for example that wouldn’t fit under other cats which would be used to sort history books and other types of nonfiction. Creative nonfiction works in particular benefit by sorting in setting cats. Not all nonfiction is the same. I personally would prefer to keep the works by setting and get rid of the fiction cats rather then the other way around if there must be a merger.4meter4 (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Category:Works set in the 20th century also includes Category:History books about the 20th century. History books in general have settings. Dimadick (talk) 08:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That exactly touches my earlier point about different parameters for non-fiction: non-fiction history books aren't said to be set in a period, they are said to be about a period (or more broadly, about a topic). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this sort of categories is generally understood as "fictional works", in other words fiction as a subcategory of works. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rule by a subset of population

Nominator's rationale: Trivial, misleading, and unneeded category. All forms of government are rule by a subset of the population (no government, to my knowledge, lets 6-month old babies participate in governance). In practice, this has been used for "Government and social ideas the creator / maintainer disapproves of." But that's not really a valid category. Includes random things like the mostly legal crime of apartheid (apartheid itself, maybe, but the legal crime?) and Muslim privilege (what?). Since it's loosely defined, an upmerge will be a bit tricky, but I think most of the articles are already adequetely categorized. Maybe a few could be manually added to Category:Social privilege and the rest to Category:Political systems. SnowFire (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

X in fiction IX

Nominator's rationale: Conversion from X in fiction to Fiction about X, as this must be a defining trait. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:White holes in film

Nominator's rationale: One-page subcategory in a tree with only two other members. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, or delete as the article does not even mention white holes. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nom Mason (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Law enforcement in the United States in fiction

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many US LEAs (e.g. FBI) are not police departments. Apokrif (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel that we don't need to segregate police departments from other types of law enforcement. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should rather merge to Category:Law enforcement in the United States in fiction (more general term,). Apokrif (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If merged then reverse merge, as law enforcement is the broader term. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

X in fiction VIII

Nominator's rationale: Conversion from X in fiction to Fiction about X, as this must be a defining trait. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Years by state of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge the Category:Years by state of the United States to Category:Years in the United States by state or territory. I'm not sure we need this category separated now that the year categories in Category:Years in the United States by state or territory have been sorted into century categories. –Aidan721 (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

X in fiction VII

Nominator's rationale: Conversion from X in fiction to Fiction about X, as this must be a defining trait. Category:Narcissism in fiction and Category:Narcissism in television and its subcategories also need to be purged of characters, presumably an attempt to bypass the repeated deletion of Category:Fictional narcissists in 2007–08. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Languages of the Pygmies

Nominator's rationale: I don't know what to name this category, but... I'm pretty sure that "Languages of the Pygmies" isn't right given the main article is Classification of Pygmy languages Mason (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_21&oldid=1191781738"