Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 10

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by -sche (talk | contribs) at 02:52, 12 April 2024 (→‎Category:Uterus transplant recipients). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< April 9
April 11 >

April 10

Category:Religious extremism by country

Nominator's rationale: No need to have a category with a single country in it. This is unhelpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious police

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories Mason (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete per nom, and because it is a redundant category layer with only one subcategory. The subcategory is already in the target so merge and delete have the same effect. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Russian Military leaders of the 2022 Russo-Ukrainian War

Nominator's rationale: Does not match the main article, Russian invasion of Ukraine and is populated solely by politicians. AusLondonder (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it be merged instead of deleted then? Mason (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or merge when there is a suitable target), these aren't military leaders. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Even if we were to rename "Military" to "political", it's arbitrarily put together. These are the presidents of the RF, DNR and LNR, but one might just as well include Lukashenka, the Ayatollah of Iran and Kim Jong-un, or all heads of all federal subjects of the Russian Federation including Kadyrov. NLeeuw (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Universities Canada

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping with Category:Universities in Canada. User:Namiba 20:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and just membership of an organization is hardly ever a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military leaders of the 2022 Russo-Ukrainian War

Nominator's rationale: This category does not match the article, namely Russian invasion of Ukraine. It is also populated solely by one political leader, not a military leader. AusLondonder (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mashriqi Jews

Nominator's rationale: per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mashriqi Jews, the term is rarely used. Another possibility: to upmerge into Category:Mizrahi Jews pr their subcats - Category:North African Jews and Category:West Asian Jews‎. Альдий (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If not kept, I think we should merge, not delete. Mason (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Musta'arabi Jews

Nominator's rationale: Small subcategory. Another possibility: to upmerge directly into Category:Mizrahi Jews. Альдий (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: Wikipedia:Overcategorization/Small with no potential for growth is no longer a reason to delete a category. Mason (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms by Muslims

Nominator's rationale: This category feels WP:COATRACKy. There is no Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms by Christians, even though those are far more prevalent. Moreover, many of the incidents here were not even defined by the participation of Muslims so inclusion into the Islam and anti-Semitism article would not always be appropriate. User:Namiba 18:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I originally created that category, feeling that pogroms by Muslims were notable precisely because they were much less common than pogroms by (especially Russian or other Eastern European) Christians. --GCarty (talk) 07:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. But the effect might be that unnecessary emphasis is placed on Muslims as perpetrators in a way that is currently not done for Christians (or others) as perpetrators. NLeeuw (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:18th-century American slave owners

Nominator's rationale: Do we really need to diffuse by century of ownership? I don't think that the category is helpful. I think diffusion by state would be more helpful. Mason (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like the categories have been depopulated. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW: @MarcocapelleWhen I nominated the categories, there were zero pages in them, just the slave-trader categories. Mason (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:American slave owners. Redundant layers. NLeeuw (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opose Whyever delete it? It is always usefull to sort people by century, and the category American slave owners is too big, and need sub categories. Nothing prevents having both a category by state and a category by century; other categories of people do. Slaves have century categories, and nothing prevents having century categories for slave owners as well. They are always helpful when a reader need to find people by century, and do not prevent the creation of other categories, such as state categories.--Aciram (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As the category creator,Aciram, are you planning on populating them? Mason (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's just 2 centuries, I strongly recommend against subdividing by centuries. There will be a lot of duplication without navigational advantage. Splitting by state seems doable and defining, however. NLeeuw (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm adding the newly-created parent categories, that are also not populated with pages, in a moment. @Aciram@Marcocapelle@Nederlandse Leeuw Mason (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's very helpful to start creating new empty categories with little navigational value in the middle of a CfD. That said, I'll emphasise that I favour upmerging for now without prejudice. If a newly created category can be properly filled with items and has demonstrable navigational value, there's nothing wrong with it. NLeeuw (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated. It is not helpful to sort by century.--User:Namiba 00:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Diffusion by century is always useful in large categories. Dimadick (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not always. For example, we very intentionally don't have activists diffused by century or athletes by sport. Dimadick, are you planning on doing the diffusion? Because right now these categories are *very empty*. Mason (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, there is also a Category:Slave owners from the Thirteen Colonies so this century scheme only separate biographies of the very last part of the 18th century versus what we already have separated. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like an argument for deleting the American-specific categories above, but not the ones for slave owners in general. --GCarty (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree to some extent. On the other hand, apart from American slave owners, we just have slave traders who have their own category tree anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Jewish pogroms by Muslims 1941-49

Nominator's rationale: Merge as arbcat. Why 1941 to 1949? This distinction seems arbitrary. (If not merged, it should be renamed to Anti-Jewish pogroms by Muslims in the 1940s) Mason (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decades are common practice when there are multiple sibling decade categories, but that is not going to happen in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm I wouldn't be sure about that, but now that I think about it, perhaps a subdivision by century is a viable alternative? NLeeuw (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in Réunion

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only 4 churches total in Category:Roman Catholic churches in Réunion, so diffusion by century isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about, say, Hawaii or Alaska? (Or Malta should integration be achieved back in the 1950s–60s?) 61.244.93.97 (talk) 09:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or Kaliningrad post-1945? 61.244.93.97 (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep so that it may be grouped under an African parent category when there are also such by continent parents. 61.244.93.97 (talk) 09:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you create it then of course it is a good merge target too. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as stated above; or otherwise the next preferable choice would be merger with Roman catholic church buildings in all other départements et régions d'outre-mer under the same category. 61.244.93.97 (talk) 08:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this category and put it under both the French and the African hierarchy. 83.229.61.201 (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an IP user you can vote as many times as you want but don't expect it to be taken seriously by the closer of the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comments on the final merge target, specifically on whether these churches belong in the "France" category, would be appreciated!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 14:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Languages used in Doordarshan

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. PepperBeast (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. They are simply Indian languages, at most to be diffused by Indian state. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Estonian numismatists

Nominator's rationale: 1-member. Little potential to grow Estopedist1 (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge for now without prejudice per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Upmerge for now per nom. I've added the rest of the single person categories. @Nederlandse Leeuw and Estopedist1:Mason (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smasongarrison I'm not sure if Estopedist would appreciate it that you changed their nomination. It makes sense, but I think it's better to ask the nominator to include other categories to their nomination than to do it yourself without their prior consent.
    If Estopedist agrees, however, I also favour upmerging the additional categories for now without prejudice. NLeeuw (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Estopedist1 @Smasongarrison @Nederlandse Leeuw thanks very much for the work here, I was looking at these last night but then had to go to sleep! I've done a little more tidying:
    • Category:Czechoslovak numismatists is empty (with one moved to Czech
    • Category:New Zealand numsimatists is empty (the one classed as numismatist is really a coin designer, so moved to that category)
    • Category:Belarusian numismatists - I can't seem to locate the proposal for it?
    There are some more things I had in mind that I will try to get to, today Lajmmoore (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As stated, Category:New Zealand numismatists is empty. Liz Read! Talk! 16:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now, without objection to recreate any of these categories when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: by nominator. Excellent job, mates! Thanks for modifying my original nomination!--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad to know you didn't mind. Personally I usually don't appreciate it when other people change my nomination without asking, but not everyone is the same way. NLeeuw (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: - Categories: Belarusian, Estonian, Lithuanian and Pakistani numismatist are no longer single person categories. Lajmmoore (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They have only two or three articles so they can still be merged. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think for the discipline it's useful for catgeories that reflect more than one article to be separate, and I believe the nominations were made prior to the addition of more people to the categories Lajmmoore (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Burial sites of the House of Yurievichi

Nominator's rationale: 1 P, 0 C. Upmerge for now. NLeeuw (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now, without objection to recreate any of these categories when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Uterus transplant recipients

Nominator's rationale: small category with only one person in it, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, the article Uterus transplant discusses a number of known cases and the recipients were apparently not notable by themselves (with one exception). Marcocapelle (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the future, there may be enough notable uterus transplant recipients to make it worthwhile to have a category. When that day comes, I hope someone recreates this category. But right now, with only one person in the category? Merge per nom. -sche (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-feminism

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories. (If Anti-feminism is the preferred name, then we should still merge and then rename to preserve the edit history) Mason (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge to Category:Anti-feminism. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that, I think we should regard 'antifeminism' and 'opposition to feminism' as synonyms, and a subset of the broader phenomenon of 'criticism of feminism', which is currently (correctly) a parent of Category:Opposition to feminism. The default way to go would be to have Category:Antifeminism as a category per WP:C2D, and merge the other category into it. Pragmatically speaking, I agree with nom that we should preserve the edit history as much as possible, and pick the oldest category as the one to rename, and merge the younger 2 into it. Category:Opposition to feminism was created on 3 November 2019‎, and Category:Anti-feminism on 20 January 2024‎. Therefore, Category:Opposition to feminism should be the merge target.
Therefore, I suggest merging per nom, and afterways a speedy rename to Category:Antifeminism per WP:C2D. (Maybe the second step can be taken in one go during this CfM already?). NLeeuw (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pin-up models

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories by a new (to categories) user. Mason (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were they really adult models? The first article I am reading, Betty Bryant, does not mention anything about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good question. Do you think that just targeted to regular models would be better? I don't think that this is really defining, as it's more of a layout/design/style rather than a type. Mason (talk) 03:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century Australian women activists

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. Several CFDs have decided that activists are not diffused by century Mason (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century Australian women tennis players

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. The norm is to not diffuse by century for specific sports. I already have a speedy rename in for the current parent category (20th-century Australian women athletes) Mason (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_10&oldid=1218503424"