Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply
Line 312: Line 312:
:* Well, at least purge [[Transvestic fetishism]] and [[Dual-role transvestism]] before merging because they are clearly not about transgender. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 20:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
:* Well, at least purge [[Transvestic fetishism]] and [[Dual-role transvestism]] before merging because they are clearly not about transgender. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 20:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
:*:Agreed. [[User:Nederlandse Leeuw|NLeeuw]] ([[User talk:Nederlandse Leeuw#top|talk]]) 13:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
:*:Agreed. [[User:Nederlandse Leeuw|NLeeuw]] ([[User talk:Nederlandse Leeuw#top|talk]]) 13:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Disperse''' per Marcocapelle. [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 02:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:48, 12 April 2024

< April 7
April 9 >

April 8

Category:Opposition to Ferenc Gyurcsány

Nominator's rationale: Not sure why we even have this, it seems to be an extension of the POV issues plaguing Mr. Gyurcsány here and it also seems to curiously exclude Fizdez, his primary opposition. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we do not have an opposition category for every separate government. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some of the political parties listed here have nearly 40 years of history. Some of the members were probably not even alive during Gyurcsány's term in office. Not a useful categorization for parties. Dimadick (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, but... should we then also delete Category:Opposition to Viktor Orbán? Both categories were created last year and seem to serve a similar purpose. NLeeuw (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Allan Nonymous what do you think as nom? You might not have seen this. There could be a reason for having both, having neither, or having one but not the other. Technically speaking, Gyurcsány has been in "opposition" to Orbán since 2010, and since 2022 the opposition leader, so if we mean formal parliamentary opposition, the scope of the Category:Opposition to Ferenc Gyurcsány should be limited to 2004 to 2009, while Category:Opposition to Viktor Orbán could be scoped to 1998-2002 and 2010-present. Then again, maybe we should call it "Opposition to the Orban Government(s)" or something instead of "to Viktor Orbán" personally. NLeeuw (talk) 07:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel there is a case for having the Category:Opposition to Viktor Orbán without this article, given the fact that Orban has had a much bigger impact on Hungary, but more to the point, that is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Native American characters in video games

Nominator's rationale: Effectively duplicative with the older Category:Video games featuring Native American protagonists‎, and most of the entries are video games, not characters. Delete without merging down. -- ferret (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as duplicative, as nom states. Nothing lost in deletion anyways, as there were many instances of the newer version being wrongly or poorly implemented anyways. (Many DEFINING violations.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's a difference between these two categories. "characters in video games" are notable characters in the game while "protagonists‎" are lead characters. By comparison, there is a category called "Category:Black characters in video games" and also Category:Video games featuring black protagonists. Native American characters in video games are a lot rarer and deserve categories to help people find them, raise awareness and for research. Artanisen (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that's just it. How often is a game's non-protagonist side character's race going to be an DEFINING trait of a game on a whole? And as ferret notes, it doesn't make sense that your category is framed as about characters but was mostly applied to video game articles, not character articles. Sergecross73 msg me 21:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that in some games the Native American character plays a (very) minor role, while in others they are an important part of the story and gaming experience. If their role is too minor then they can be removed from the category. For example in the Red Dead Redemption games and Red Dead Revolver, the Native American characters play a significant role in the storyline, but they aren't protagonists. As in defining, well the interaction between the cowboys and Native Americans is an essential part of the main story and activities. -Artanisen (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The counter-argument categories are populated with characters. This one is populated with video games, except for one (Nightwolf), who is in the duplicative category already. -- ferret (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I put Nightwolf in "Native American characters in video games", because he's an important character in Mortal Kombat, but not a protagonist. Other characters are described in the articles of the video games. If necessary more information can be added about the characters. This game Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light, the title of the game "Guardian of Light" refers to the Mayan warrior named Totec. Totec is playable in cooperative play. So Totec is one of the most important characters in this game together with Lara Croft. In Shadow Hearts: From the New World, the protagonist is Johnny Garland, while Shania is his female counterpart. Red Dead Redemption and Red Dead Redemption 2, each have a couple of important native American characters. Without these characters the story wouldn't work. - Artanisen (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if it is not about a protagonist then it is nor a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - when I first read this category title, I thought it was for Native American characters who debuted in video games, not for video games with Native American characters. Maybe the category could just be redefined. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but I believe that the necessary reworking would pretty much lead us to the category ferret noted already exists. Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that Category:Fictional Native American people in video games already exists for categorizing characters (not necessarily the games they are part of), although note hatnote that this category is for A) American Indians in the United States, and B) Is not for fictional characters merely "coded" with some American Indian attributes. I suspect that this category might be a better use of what the category creator intended. SnowFire (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Category:Fictional Native American people in video games has a lot of overlap with this category. Usually the term "character" is used for video game characters instead of "Fictional people". Native American usually refers to indigenous people from the USA. It could also be used as a broader term for indigenous people from the Americas (North, Central and South America). - Artanisen (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This shows further duplication with existing categories that can (and do) serve this purpose. -- ferret (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this category into Category:Fictional Native American people in video games. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a somewhat related subject, I think we should also discuss proposing a merger of Category:Fictional Native American women into Category:Fictional Native American people (for the same reasons that the former category Category:Fictional Jewish women was merged into Category:Fictional Jews). AHI-3000 (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of Indian civil awards and decorations

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAWARD PepperBeast (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The above awards aren't worth an exception from WP:OCAWARD, they are not comparable to a Nobel prize. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We're not starting this again, are we? Most of these are clearly notable and defining. They include the Bharat Ratna, the highest civilian honour that can be awarded by India, and the Kaisar-i-Hind Medal, an extremely prestigious award given in British India. If they're not defining, then what on earth is? WP:OCAWARD certainly does not say that awards have to be comparable to a Nobel Prize; neither does it say that only international awards should be categorised, which is what such a suggestion implies. The deletion rationale is entirely spurious and ridiculously brief. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Feminist historians

Nominator's rationale: merge to clarify that this is about women's history rather than a category of historians who happen to support feminism. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't this one be more specific to Historians of feminism? Mason (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think these are the same scope. I'm leaning Keep. NLeeuw (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Feminist philosophers

Nominator's rationale: rename to clarify that this is about feminist philosophy rather than a category of philosophers who happen to support feminism. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Same logic as the rename for Atheism writers to writers about atheism. Mason (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:International Booker Prize winners

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAWARD PepperBeast (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Feminist theologians

Nominator's rationale: rename to clarify that this is about feminist theology rather than a category of theologians who happen to support feminism. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Same logic as the rename for Atheism writers to writers about atheism. Mason (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Fellowship

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF, WP:OCAWARD PepperBeast (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with identity politics

Nominator's rationale: delete, largely overlaps with the much better expanded tree of Category:Activists, which contains among others Category:Activists by ethnicity. It is also a matter of WP:OCASSOC. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH. It's also typically an accusation against an opponent, which is usually denied. Few people will proudly advocate for identity politics themselves. So per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT it should also be deleted. NLeeuw (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Odisha Sahitya Akademi

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category contains only one item. PepperBeast (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom but add the article to the parent categories manually. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Israel Prize in translation recipients

Nominator's rationale: Category contains only one article PepperBeast (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri in literature & education

Convert Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri in literature & education to article List of Recipients of the Padma Shri in literature and education
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. Should probably be listified. PepperBeast (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. Corresponding lists already exist. PepperBeast (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:16th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in Africa

Nominator's rationale: There's not enough content to justify this level of diffusion. Please be aware that the IP making all of these requests is being extremely disruptive on CFD. And is evading their block Mason (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • With eight and six articles respectively (and more to come) would you consider differently? 46.229.243.187 (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Define what's "not enough content". There are many churches in the oldest former colonies which date back to the 17th or 16th century. Meanwhile @Samasongarrison please clarify your point about IP being disruptive. 46.229.243.187 (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To the closer, the ip is most likely: WP:LTA/HKGW Mason (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LTAHKGW? 46.229.243.187 (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Considering the current content of the categories, I am withdrawing my support. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair, especially now that there's content. Mason (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:16th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Portuguese Macau

Nominator's rationale: sibling are all called Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Macau, even though those were also during the time of Portuguese Macau (1557–1999) . Category:19th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Macau‎ Category:20th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Macau Mason (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't they all be bishops of Macau? Per List of bishops of Macau. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmmm, I've been thinking of them like a country of work category, like that's where the bishop is serving, as opposed to the dioses. If we changed it to "of" Macau, would that mean that all the bishops would also have to be in the parent category? Category:XXXX-century Roman Catholic bishops in China (or Asia)? My goal is to make all the categories consistent, and possibly avoid having a perpetual edit war over the parent country category.[1] Mason (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long story short, there are bishops appointed to dioceses elsewhere who served and were based in Macau (e.g. as administrators of the diocese, which covered an area large enough to be subdivided into hundreds of dioceses in the following centuries). These are bishops in Macau but not Bishops of Macau. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse rename. That was the Portuguese period, and there was a time when it was a província ultramarina. 219.77.182.250 (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What does that even mean? Mason (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is obvious that it was Portuguese, that does not have to be added to the category name per se. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then name the categories accordingly. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I am just saying that it is not necessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not necessary per se; but, as I read it, not something that cannot and shouldn't be done. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rename the 17th to 20th-century categories accordingly and make them along with the 16th-century category under the tree of Category:Portuguese Macau. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, these are all the same IP and a well-known one at that WP:LTA/HKGW Mason (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infrastructure

Nominator's rationale: merge, strongly overlapping scope. (Of course if there is consensus about this, then all subcategories need to be nominated as well.) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think this is a really good idea. (However, if the decision ends with Keep, think we'd need to have a really really clear definition in the category description to support maintenance. ) Mason (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I think this category should remain as is. :) KīlaueaGlows (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose. Some of the subcategories of Category:Infrastructure would be seemingly out of place in Category:Buildings and structures. For instance Energy infrastructure‎, Category:Infrastructure of the Holocaust, Category:History of infrastructure, Category:Infrastructure investment and Category:IT infrastructure wouldn't make sense as subcategories of .Category:Buildings and structures. Pichpich (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, then for the top category it is too early to be merged. The subcategories by date and location are set categories, and items of infrastructure are always buildings or structures, so this objection does not apply to these subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I've been looking at some categories about canals and they are appropriately categorized under "infrastructure" rather than "buildings and structures". I think with their addition and that of other similar categories. "structure" would become so broad (anything that is built?) as to become almost meaningless. There might be some overlap here but I think that the solution might be to change "buildings and structures" to just "buildings" and leave "infrastructure" be. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at more categories, it looks like some "infrastructure" categories are placed under the parent categories of "buildings and structures" which I think is more appropriate than merging the two. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:French forts in the United States

Nominator's rationale: This seems anachronistic. These forts were not "in the United States" when they were built and only became so later on. User:Namiba 02:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not only a proposed renaming but also an extension of scope; forts in New France that were not in provinces which became the United States will be covered as a result. 61.244.93.97 (talk) 09:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is perfectly fine. New France has never been divided in an American and a Canadian part. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mason (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rathores

Nominator's rationale: delete, Rathore is not a defining characteristic of these articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, cleanup, possibly rename. Looks defining for many pages in it. - Altenmann >talk 14:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:.io video games

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining trait. This simply indicates that the game in question has it's web hostname in the .io TLD. It is akin to having a category for ".com video games", ".org video games", etc. There is no connection between these games from a developer, publisher, or otherwise manner. -- ferret (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will note the TfD was closed as delete, FWIW.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medical schools in the Caribbean

Nominator's rationale: Merge categories with only one or two members to all parents. Rename the last WP:C2C. – Fayenatic London 08:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: It doesn't sound nice to lump together the BES islands with those of the CAS islands. 46.229.243.187 (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you use terms that may not be common knowledge, please link them, e.g. BES islands and CAS islands.
Sorry if IYHO it doesn't sound nice to use Dutch Caribbean, but setting up a separate sub-hierarchy for Caribbean Netherlands would require many perpetually small categories. The best hierarchy we have is Dutch Caribbean. – Fayenatic London 17:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: IP has a point this time, Dutch Caribbean is a non-existent polity. It is merely a legacy term after the Dutch Antilles were dissolved. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm no expert on the history or current politics, I'm just looking at how our categories are structured at the moment. Would you support a split of the whole Dutch Caribbean hierarchy? If so, I suggest you make a nomination to split some representative categories at the top levels. But until that has happened, the tiny sub-topic of medical schools should follow the existing hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 21:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well at least I still support merging, even if one of the merge targets (Category:Medical schools in the Caribbean versus Category:Medical schools in the Dutch Caribbean) is disputable. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Medical schools in Sint Maarten and keep it under Category:Medical schools in the Caribbean and Category:Medical schools by country (along with Category:Medical schools in Curaçao and Category:Medical schools in Aruba). Group medical schools of the BES islands under Caribbean Netherlands and keep them under both Category:Medical schools in the Caribbean and Category:Medical schools in the Netherlands. 46.229.243.187 (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right about my spelling mistake and, more importantly, right about the way to solve this problem more generally. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as obiter dictum, should Category:Dutch Caribbean be kept just to hold a small number of subcategories and topics that are common to both BES and CAS (or ABC and SSS)? 46.229.243.187 (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's "non-existence" yet it's a good collective term to refer to these special municipalities altogether. It's somehow like referring to an additional province although they aren't. 46.229.243.187 (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Citizens of Hungary through descent

Nominator's rationale: Manual purge/merge per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 17#Category:Citizens through descent. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:USA for Africa songs

Nominator's rationale: Categories containing only 1 article. Unlikely to be expanded since the group has been inactive for 40 years. Mika1h (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Taxa named by Baron Cajetan von Felder

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories – "baron" is a mere title. Micromesistius (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish nobility

Nominator's rationale: arbirtrary and irrelevant intersection by ethnicity. I found this category added to Yehudi Menuhin on my watchlist and I'm about to revert it because, while it's true that he was Jewish and that he was a Life peer, the intersection of these facts (especially the latter one) in a category seems more than a little bizarre and "non-defining", because he was by far best known as a violinist. There are probably many other examples just like this one. Graham87 (talk) 09:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is a well-populated category. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Volodimerovichi family

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Rurikids. "Volodimerovichi" is rarely used in comparison to "Rurikids", also does not follow the title of the main article. Mellk (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This category is fine as it is. It is part of larger tree of princely clans and branches of Kievan Rus'. During several renamings and recategorisations last year, it was agreed to be cautious with categorising anyone as a "Rurikid", as the historicity of Rurik (as well as Sineus and Truvor) is disputed as a possibly a founding myth (similar to Remus and Romulus etc.), and there is no concept of a "Rurikid dynasty" in historical sources until the 16th century. However, Volodimer' (Vladimir, Volodymyr, Uladzemir) is a well-known historical figure, and his family / descendants are commonly known as "Volodimerovichi" in English-language reliable sources. Just like, for example, Category:Sviatoslavichi family and Category:Olgovichi family. It is preferable if there is a main article with the same name for these families, but so far, there are only redirects to the founder of each princely branch, e.g. Olgovichi redirects to Oleg I of Chernigov, Sviatoslavichi to Sviatoslav II of Kiev, and Volodimerovichi to Vladimir the Great. It's also much better for navigation not to lump all these people into one big category, but by commonly recognised princely branches. NLeeuw (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW if the main article title is important, shouldn't this be WP:C2D to Category:Family life and children of Vladimir I? (I wouldn't be in favour of that, but that would make better sense according to the rationale). NLeeuw (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • As there is no article Volodimerovichi yet, it would be helpful to add a source in the header of the category page indicating that this is a common name among historians indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sounds like a good idea. NLeeuw (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no such branches at this stage, this comes later and we already have cats for those as they are widely accepted Rurikid branches. The term "Volodimerovichi" is used by a couple of historians instead of "Rurikids". Whether Rurik existed or not is irrelevant because the term "Rurikid" is widely used by later historians (similarly to the term "Kievan Rus" even though the state was not called as such then), hence this is POV to use an uncommon term that has not been widely accepted (yet). Mellk (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm now I'm beginning to doubt. Christian Raffensperger seems to use it for all members of princely clans of Kievan Rus' in general, as a replacement "Riurikovichi", rather than just Volodimer' and his descendants. One wonders about the predecessors of Volodimer' (Yaropolk, Sviatoslav, Igor, Oleg and the alleged Riurik), who could hardly retro-actively be called "Volodimerovichi". I'll think about it some more, I'll get back to this issue. NLeeuw (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have checked the literature more thoroughly, and I think it might have been a mistake to name this category in this way. Since the early 2010s, scholars including Raffensperger, Ostrowski, Halperin and others have been using "Volodimerovichi" as an alternative to "R(i)urikovichi" or "R(i)urikids" altogether, and not as a specific branch within the larger clan structure of Kievan Rus', like the later -ovichi families. Theoretically, "Volodimerovichi" could still be used that way (and sometimes it is), but this is not widespread in historiography yet.
    I do think it's useful to keep it as a separate category, but it's better to change the name according to our conventions. As both nom and I have suggested, it is useful to follow the main article title wherever possible. However, the current main article title is Family life and children of Vladimir I. The last part probably should be Vladimir the Great instead of Vladimir I, given the Vladimir the Great biography title. (I myself prefer Volodimer I of Kiev, which is common amongst modern scholars, but not (yet) the WP:COMMONNAME in all English-language literature). The first part is also unusual; there is no other enwiki article title with Family life and children of X. The common formula is Family of X. So per WP:TITLECON, it should be Family of Vladimir the Great.
    Therefore, I would like to propose the following:
    Defer decision in this CfR, and initiate Requested Move of Family life and children of Vladimir I to Family of Vladimir the Great. If the RM is approved, then
    Rename to Category:Family of Vladimir the Great. Does that seem like a good solution? NLeeuw (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)

Nominator's rationale: No need for disambiguation. User:Namiba 00:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gender incongruence

Nominator's rationale: Merge to Transgender and medicine. This category is a based on the ICD-11 equivalent of Gender dysphoria, and is a odd carve out of the parent category. If not merged, I think it should be renamed to Gender dysphoria because the bulk of the actual contents are about dysphoria, not incongruence. Mason (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disperse, the category contains an odd mix of transgender-related and non-transgender-related articles and redirects. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge for now per nom. It is indeed an odd mixture. As nom says, gender incongruence is a redirect to a section in ICD-11, where it is called a synonym of gender dysphoria, but the article causes of gender incongruence claims it is the cause of gender dysphoria. At any rate, it's irregular to have a "causes of X" article if there is no main article of the same name. It also supports upmerging to a category where at least the article gender dysphoria itself can be found. NLeeuw (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disperse per Marcocapelle. -sche (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_8&oldid=1218503110"