Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Speedy renaming and merging[edit]

If the category and desired change do not match one of the criteria mentioned in C2, do not list it here. Instead, list it in the main CFD section.

If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.

Use the following format on a new line at the beginning of the list: 

* [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

(The four ~ will sign and datestamp the entry automatically.)
If the current name should be redirected rather than deleted, use: 

* REDIRECT [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

To note that human action is required, e.g. updating a template that populates the category, use: 

* NO BOTS [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

Remember to tag the category page with: {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 15:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 328 open requests (refresh).

Current requests[edit]

Please add new requests at the top of the list, preferably with a link to the parent category (in case of C2C) or relevant article (in case of C2D).

@Hey man im josh: I personally think all these should be renamed to match the established parent category tree at Category:Health ministers by country (and others such as defence) which use a Subject ministers of X format AusLondonder (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london explained that there was a difference (below, in the opposed section) when they opposed a number of nominations @AusLondonder. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'm not sure I agree with that though and was considering a CFD nomination. AusLondonder (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Does that mean you're contesting all of these nominations that are refactoring? It sounds like you're not confident, so perhaps you should hold off until you are. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to what you're proposing, but I think the original proposal to standardise the category trees was the most appropriate. Interested to hear from Fayenatic london a bit more about their rationale for opposing that. AusLondonder (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed requests[edit]

  • It is very unusual to include Egypt in Maghreb, and the article does not discuss Egyptian Jews in detail. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw the nomination. --Aldij (talk) 08:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:American female winemakers to Category:American women winemakers – Reason C2C: per siblings in Category:American women by occupation. TSventon (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose speedy. Female versus women is not clear cut, especially not under C2C. Mason (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose There is no consensus on "women" versus "female" as an adjective, and existing cats should generally not be renamed. NLeeuw (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NLeeuw, for future reference, do you have a source for what you said? TSventon (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TSventon I do. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 27#Women/Men or Female/Male as an adjective. See User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Emptying categories out of process#Admin manually moving categories without discussion for an April 2023 incident confirming the fact that there is no consensus on female versus women. In the archives you'll find countless other precedents which confirmed the fact that we do not agree on which adjective is better, and to change it one way or another. NLeeuw (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NLeeuw the first discussion you linked was closed "no consensus; in general, users seem open to some case-by-case fixes" and your userpage is about out of process moves so I don't think they support "existing cats should generally not be renamed". TSventon (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I provided those links in order to show there has been no consensus since 2013, and that non-consensus was confirmed in 2023. The statement "existing cats should generally not be renamed" is compatible with the statement "no consensus; in general, users seem open to some case-by-case fixes". I understand the outcome as saying that it is up to the nominator to justify case-by-case fixes; nominating a category for speedy renaming is invoking a general criterion for speedy renaming, which is apparently not allowed. NLeeuw (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But that is just my interpretation. I could be wrong. I haven't done a full review of every single CfR since 2013 to see what is and isn't allowed to be fixed on a case-by-case basis. Nevertheless, I would suggest not to try and change catnames unless they really pose a problem, such as a category about girls who have not yet reached adulthood, and therefore probably should not be named "women". (There was a discussion about Category:child monarchs some time ago, I can't quite remember where. The argument was that if we were to create a subcategory for girls who became monarchs before the age of 15 or 16, they should be called Category:Female child monarchs (or Category:Girl monarchs), and not Category:Women child monarchs, as "women" and "child" are incompatible words in that situation, even though a parent category would be Category:Women monarchs. This would be a "case-by-case fix" in my opinion.) NLeeuw (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold pending other discussion[edit]

  • None currently

Moved to full discussion[edit]

PLEASE NOTE: I have moved all of the following Categories here pending adequate confirmation of their eligibility under C2C. I made a serious effort to look for that, but was unable to find such confirmation. There is a massive jumbled welter of Categories in this realm, with no prevailing pattern that I can discern. Anomalous+0 (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

++

  • Oppose for now to all by ethnic or national origin nominations. 46.229.243.187 (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your opposition needs to have a reason. Mason (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The existing wording sounds more natural and is easier to understand. 46.229.243.187 (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current discussions[edit]

Shortcut

April 30[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Wikipedian disc golfers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:USERCAT for utterly lacking collaborative value, compare Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/April_2008#Category:Wikipedians_who_play_golf
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pppery (talk • contribs) 01:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category was not tagged until today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 14:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Writers of government reports[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining Mason (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian imperialists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non defining category, with a very large wall of text on the category page that effectively says as much Mason (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:German speculative fiction translators[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Duel upmerge for now. There's only one (or two) people in each of these categories which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim personnel[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Merge per precedent. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe these are the last categories with the name "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim". Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup qualification (CAF)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category's main focus is on the competition whose actual title is the proposed one and not made up. C2C or C2D aren't applicable here since one would look at the category page and see no focused main article. But I want full discussion on this. Intrisit (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Splendor artists[edit]

Convert Category:American Splendor artists to article American Splendor
Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme of Category:Artists by comic title or some such and this is analogous to WP:PERFCAT. Just make sure they are all listed (with citations) at the article on the comic. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Executed assassins of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Broaden the category name. Is there really a need to distinguish between assassins who were executed and those who were not? Mason (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Georgetown College (Kentucky)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: In line with the main article, Georgetown College. Graham (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indonesia Wikimedians[edit]

Nominator's rationale: All other categories use "Indonesian". I would speedy rename but I can't figure out how to with Twinkle. 📊Panamitsu (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]



April 29[edit]

Category:Rātana politicians[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. No need to merge, the subcategory is already in the tree of the three potential targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we certain there are no Rātana people who stood but were not elected? I would prefer to keep ‘politicians’, but delete ‘MPs’. If that is not preferred, then yes, I would still delete ‘politicians’. — HTGS (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there seems to be a lot of confusion in this category (and in articles relating to Rātana as a political force). Some of these people are adherents of the Rātana faith who became MPs, others of them were MPs for the Rātana Party or (after affiliation with the Labour Party) MPs officially endorsed by the Rātana church. Soraya Peke-Mason, for example, is a Rātana, but not an official Rātana-endorsed MP. If that can be cleared up I'd support Marcocapelle's second suggestion (merging MPs into politicians). Grutness...wha? 14:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Native American artists by gender[edit]

Nominator's rationale: If there are concerns that lead to categories such as Category:American male artists (and similar articles) being treated as non-diffusing, it seems that the same rationale should apply to Native American artists. (Apologies if I've made any formatting errors. This is my first time submitting a cfd.) Katya (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, then I modify to: Merge Category:Native American male artists to Category:Native American artists, per WP:OCEGRS unless there is indication that male Native American artists are a notable topic in themselves. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, it looks like there's been discussion in the past about whether or not there should be any "male artist" categories, without any consensus. In the absence of consensus to delete them, I think we should keep the Native American male artist categories, in keeping with other paired male / female artist categories elsewhere on the site. (Or we could revisit the issue of whether "male artist" categories should exist at all, but I think that's a separate issue. Again, my original question was just whether or not the categories should be non-diffusing.) Katya (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politicians of the Second Polish Republic[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The contents seem to be broader than political office-holders, so "from" will be more appropriate than "of". – Fayenatic London 11:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, while "from" is the default, I think "of" is also a good possibility for politicians and for military personnel. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Of" is fitting for political office-holders, but we don't use it for politicians generally. I suppose we have "opposition politicians of a country" who are appointed to a formal role, but e.g. revolutionaries or independence activists would be better described as "from" the country. – Fayenatic London 22:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency and given the broader scope of the category. Mason (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians of the Korean Empire[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Either (A) purge and rename to political office-holders, removing some e.g. Syngman Rhee who was born under the Empire but IIUC not a politician until it ended; or (B) rename to Category:Politicians from the Korean Empire, because where there is no demonym we usually use "Politicians from" rather than "of" (see various siblings in Category:Politicians by former country). – Fayenatic London 15:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least purge, possibly rename, people who weren't a politician in the Korean Empire do not belong here. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politicians of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Purge and rename. E.g. Abdul Rashid Dostum was a military officer, not a politician, of the DRA (1978–1992). – Fayenatic London 15:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Muppet performers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Performers by performance is textbook WP:PERFCAT. --woodensuperman 09:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These actors are on contract with either Jim Henson Company or Disney (Muppet), Sesame Workshop (Sesame Street), or Jim Henson Company (Fraggle Rock), to perform numerous roles. Such contracts are incredibly rare, and even the most finite involvement with any of them, the puppeteer remains known as having been part of the troupe, akin to a college alumni category.
For reference, they also each play endless characters, so it's not really by performance.
I'd propose Category:Muppet Studios performers, Category:Sesame Workshop performers, and Category:Jim Henson Company performers. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, especially the Muppet category. They're distinct performances/performers, categories and brands of puppeteering. Scanlan (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championships[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Harmonizing subcategory names in the Category:IIHF Ice Hockey Women's World Championship. Please see also the previous discussion here. Maiō T. (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The naming is unnecessarily redundant. The proposal is equivalent to "1999 International Ice Hockey Federation Ice Hockey Women's World Championships". What logical reason is there to say ice hockey twice? Seems like the parent category should be discussed, not the children. Flibirigit (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:IIHF World Women's U18 Championships[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Official tournament name as used by the IIHF. Maiō T. (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of films by year[edit]

Nominator's rationale: A prior discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 11#Lists of films by country or language split the "Lists of YYYY films by country or language" subcategories that used to be here into separate country and language categories, which is fine and I'm not disputing that result -- but now this category is a bit confusing and difficult to navigate because of its mixture of two categories (one by country and one by language) per year for virtually every year after 1920. So now that by-country and by-language are two separate sets of categories rather than one set of merged ones, they should actually be split up to their own separate parent categories rather than being mixed together in the same place.
This can certainly still be kept as a parent for those two new subcategories, if desired, but the by-country and by-language categories really should be split up into separate subcategories. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yes, the lists should be kept seperate I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts Ser Amantio di Nicolao? Bearcat's proposal makes sense I think. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct National Basketball League of Canada teams[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The NBLC itself is defunct. User:Namiba 14:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Quebec Kebs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Defunct minor league team containing no articles except the team article, the arena it temporarily inhabited, and the coaches category. User:Namiba 14:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabi people by occupation[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCEGRS, trivial intersection between occupation and ethnicity. There is mostly no need to merge, the articles are already in a parallel Indian or Pakistani category if applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a notable intersection [5][6]--User:Namiba 14:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is mainly about Indian descent, as the second link also illustrates. Hardly any of these articles is about someone of Pakistani descent, while a clear majority of Punjabi are Pakistanis. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Remote viewing[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. This is a fringe subject with only three articles and one subcat, which has a tendentious name (there are no "remote viewers", remote viewing is nonsense). Creator is permabanned and globally locked. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not deleted, it may be renamed to Category:Stargate Project, that is what the category and subcategory are primarily about. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even that is a small category with no hope of expansion (because it doesn't exist any more). Guy (help! - typo?) 15:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will note that WP:SMALLCAT is no longer a guideline.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but Upmerge Category:Remote viewers to Category:Remote viewing. Nom is correct that this is a fringe subject generally considered pseudoscience, and the claim that anyone is a "remote viewer" is WP:SUBJECTIVECAT / WP:OPINIONCAT. But I think we can put them in the parent category as people making claims about remote viewing, which at least has a main article. This seems to solve most issues pointed out by nom. I just think they nominated the wrong category to be changed. NLeeuw (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Communism in the Arab world[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT WP:OVERLAPCAT. All children are already in parents Category:Communism in Asia and Category:Communism in Asia (part of the Category:Political movements by continent tree), as well as Category:Communism by country). On the other hand, Category:Arab communists is in the Category:People by ethnicity and political orientation tree, which has been inappropriately intersected with the trees above. NLeeuw (talk) 06:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Added Conservatism and Monarchism which are very similar situations. Other siblings could be nominated as well, but I suggest we do them as follow-ups in order to not make this nomination overly complicated. NLeeuw (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Continental Singers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful for navigation to have a category that's with two pages (just the band and their discography) Mason (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The discography page doesn't look like it would survive an AfD as is anyway, and I'm not even sure the main article would. Regardless, the main article doesn't look likely to spawn any more additional pages any time soon, so the category would be staying at two entries. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the articles are already interlinked directly. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Housing rights organizations in Nashville[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one page in this category, which is uphelpful for navigation. If not merged, it should be renamed to Housing rights organizations based in Nashville, Tennessee Mason (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television in Cleveland[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 18#Category:Chicago television shows. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all content is about original programming. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Most of these categories have scopes that go beyond television programming. No objection to creating subcategories for programming, where appropriate. - Eureka Lott 05:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming, but support creation of subcategories. The proposed categories could legitimately be created as subcategories of the "Television in" categories where there are enough programs to support one, but just doing a straight rename of the "Television in" categories isn't appropriate as they don't only contain original local programs — they also have subcategories for (and/or directly contain) television stations, and people, and television programs that were national Hollywood productions set or filmed in that place but not "original" local-channel programming per se. I'll grant that they're misfiled as subcategories of a "local television programming" tree, so that should be moved to subcategories if they get created, but these categories don't only contain original local programming. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


April 28[edit]

Category:Ghais Guevara[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. SD by me (creator). (non-admin closure) Coop (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One additional article besides the main article. No need for an eponymous category, too. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Sorry, I am not familiar with the criteria for categories. I have tagged it for speedy deletion. Coop (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the two articles are already directly interlinked. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2024 (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.

Category:American men centenarians[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge with parent categories for now. This is the only cross between nationality and gender for centenarians. I don't know how necessary it is but there is no such other category like it at the moment. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Category creator) Given how many entries each parent category current has (1,735 and 2,920, respectively), I don't think diffusing them hurts. I'm sure a lot more of these could be made for the same reason, they just haven't been yet. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, one may wonder if centenarian is still a special thing, as we meanwhile have a large number of articles about supercentenarians too. Readers interested in the extreme age topic will find enough material in the supercentenarians tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle, I would say that people are definitely more likely to live to a 100 now than they were in the past but that its still rare enough to be a notable thing. Of course, that is only my opinion and probably a much bigger debate should be had on this matter.
    As for this particular one, the question is whether these categories should be diffused and more categories like Category:American men centenarians should be made. I can see that diffusion can make navigation easier. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nationalists of African nations[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:POVFORKs of Category:Nationalists by nationality. The catnames assert the existence of said "nations", which is a controversial subject as a whole, and controversial in every single example ever asserted due to competing claims of various nationalists. All contents are found in the Category:Nationalists by nationality tree already anyway. NLeeuw (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nationalism in the Arab world[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT. Almost completely the same contents, except framing the Middle East in terms of the largest ethnolinguistic group, the Arabs. NLeeuw (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Donor conceived people[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining. Although the cat is interesting, this category isn't a defining feature for anyone but the very first cases, which isn't the case for most of the folks ib here Mason (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British squatter leaders[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. each of these categories only has 1 person in it, which isn't helpful for navigation, especially considering how small the parent category is Mason (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Murdered artists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between occupation and specific cause of death. I've ensured that each member of the category is in an artists category and a murder victim category. Mason (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths from food poisoning[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Conflict in naming conventions between Category:Deaths from digestive disease and Category:Deaths from infectious disease; and Category:Deaths by poisoning. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Iraqi Turkish poets[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Language and ethnicity are different. The Kurdish category needs to be split. Mason (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Iraqi Kurdistan is a thing though. An autonomous semi-independent region with its own citizenship, if not nationality. I think what you are proposing is a change of scope. Lots of inhabitants of Iraqi Kurdistan do not speak or write Kurdish. NLeeuw (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to add another split target. My impression was that these two categories were intended to be language categories based on them being in Iraqi poets by language. Mason (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Iraqi Turkmen is also an ethnic group, but I agree with Mason that poets are better to be categorized by language that they are writing in. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points. Taking a closer look, I see that Iraqi Kurdistan and Kurdistan Region are two separate articles, the latter the political one. Alright, Support per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 05:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ossetian male writers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Non-defining intersection between ethnicity, occupation, and gender. Mason (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; we already have similar categories of ethnciity/occuptation/gender, such as Category:African-American male writers, Category:Yoruba women writers, and Category:Basque women writers. Categorizing writers by gender and nationality is quite common as well; see Category:Male writers by nationality. ForsythiaJo (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sámi textbook writers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This is not a defining intersection under WP:EGRS. The intersection of textbook writers and sami ethnicity isn't defining. (FYI: the existence of non-sami versions of the category is not sufficient.) Mason (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be blunt, it is defining in a Sámi context and even on the enwp, even if it is not in your opinion. The category exists to differentiate Sámi non-fiction writers who are textbook writers from those Sámi non-fiction writers who are not textbook writers. Or seen from the other direction: Sámi non-fiction writers can write multiple different types of books, not just textbooks. - Yupik (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it defining under EGRS? I looked but did not find evidence that this was an established intersection in academic sources. Even if you were to argue that the category is helpful for diffusion, you still need to make the case that this is a defining category. Mason (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yupik Please review EGRS, saying something is defining in a sami context isn't particularly convincing, unless you can point to evidence. Mason (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, unless any counter evidence is provided this is a straightforward application of the WP:OC guideline. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Poisoned Romans[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Duel upmerge as Non-defining intersection between nationality and method of death. Category:Victims of intentional poisonings isn't diffused by nationality. If not merged, it should be renamed Poisoned ancient Romans. Mason (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Category:Victims of intentional poisonings isn't diffused by nationality." Why the heck not? Murder victim categories are typically subdivided by nationality. Dimadick (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, are you going to diffuse it by nationality? I did't consider the category populated enough to need diffusion. Mason (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cultural depictions of Zanzibari people[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Redudant category layer. There's only one category in here, Category:Cultural depictions of Freddie Mercury‎, which probably... isn't a defining feature of FM. Mason (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:C+VG Hit award winners[edit]

Nominator's rationale: A category for recipients of an awarded by a video game magazine. There are hundreds of magazines awarding their own awards. Not defining. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also this earlier discussion:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 27#Category:PlayStation Official Magazine – UK 10/10 recipients. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. CVG is the oldest and longest running magazine in the world. Very well respected, and being a multi format magazine, it offers a unique perspective and way of comparing games across generations. The award was used as a selling point in videogames advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.155.34 (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there isn't even an article about the award. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Football League first overall draft picks[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Matches the recently renamed article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pro-Khalistan militant outfits[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename, "militant outfits" is a phrase that I have never seen before in category names. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a confusing tree. I'm not voting anything yet, I think we need to explore the options first. The main article appears to be Groups of Khalistan movement, which is also a grammatically incorrect title. I think the parent categories provide the best clues: these are Sikh rebel or terrorist groups which seek to establish an independent Khalistan or Sikh state in Punjab through armed violence. I think "organisations" is too generic. How about "Khalistan rebel groups", "Khalistan militant groups" or "Khalistan terrorist organisations"? The articles seem to say almost every single one of them, except Sikhs for Justice, has been designated a terrorist organisation by the government of India, and sometimes other states as well. But since "terrorist" can be POV, "rebel groups" is perhaps more neutral. NLeeuw (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rebel groups" is certainly more to the point than the too general "organizations" and this is an established category as well. So definitely an improvement. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Any thoughts on "Khalistan" versus "pro-Khalistan"? This is the only cat in the tree to use "pro-"; it seems redundant, although not necessarily wrong. NLeeuw (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean people of Arab descent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, very few articles and for the biographies it is not clear whether the subjects are really of ethnic Arab descent. They could be Druze, Copts, Assyrians, the articles just do not tell about it. A dual merge is not always needed, the biographies are already in Category:People of Syrian descent etc. and the topic articles are already in Category:Arab diaspora in the Caribbean. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The latter is a fair point, it should be split between Asian and African. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:10th-century Chinese adoptees[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge: Non defining intersection between century and adoption status Mason (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lean to delete single merge, these are articles about rulers who adopted their successor in this period, comparable to Roman emperors in another period. It has little to do with adoption in the modern period. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't they still be merged to the relevant century cateogry? Mason (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Zionism by former country[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously closed as merge; relisted per request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • With meanwhile two subcategories it is still a redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Mason (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Red Smith Award recipients[edit]

Nominator's rationale: per WP:OCAWARD. Information will not be lost; it has its own template and article with a list. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic bishops in Macau[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, per article List of bishops of Macau, Catholic bishops are primarily bishop of a diocese. This is follow-up on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_16#Category:16th-century_Roman_Catholic_bishops_in_Portuguese_Macau. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Although I'm on the fence about merging to Category:FOO-century Macau people, because not everyone is from Macau. Mason (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category tree is now a big mess.  · There were Catholic bishops who were appointed bishops or titular bishops elsewhere but stationed in Macau, some of them as coadjutor/auxiliary bishops or administrators or governors of this diocese. These bishops were not bearers of the title Bishop of Macau although they were bishops who worked in Macau. Further the diocese covered a much much larger area in the Far East. It's only since the 1950s (or the 1980s if the two parishes in Malacca Malaysia and Singapore are taken into consideration) the Diocese of Macau is coterminous with the present-day territorial extent of Macau. From its founding in the 16th century hundreds of dioceses have been carved out from this diocese. The first proposal regarding Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Macau is therefore opposed.  · Likewise the second and the third proposals for the 19th and 20th century categories are opposed for the reasons as stated above, and that this is also a vote for the restoration of the 16th to 18th century categories. If the 19th and the 20th century categories (and the 16th to 18th century categories as well) were to be merged the target should be Portugal since the territory was over the period a Portuguese province (save for the last twelve days of the 20th century).  · For the fourth proposal on the 21st century category, bear in mind that the bishop does not participate in any conference of bishops or anything similar of the Chinese catholic church, and that the present bishop is not a native of Macau – There is no point to proceed as proposed.  · Overall this is a keep vote (and a vote to clear the mess under the preexisting structure prior to CfD 16 April). 58.152.55.172 (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • By all means purge bishops who were appointed bishops or titular bishops elsewhere, but stationed in Macau. If the tree is a mess we simply should have a clean-up. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To the closer, this IP is WP:HKGW and has been the one making a mess of this and other similar categories. Mason (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user labelled me as such with no explanation and I simply don't understand why she gave me such a label. It appears she just labels when she's running out of supporting arguments. I took no part in making this mess. The categories nominated in this CfD or the 16 April one were created by other editors, and I'd done nothing to change them. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sámi educators[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It mirrors the same well-formed categories for non-Sámi educators. I have added one more category to this and at least two more categories could easily be created to add to this one based on the structure of the category for non-Sámi educators. -Yupik (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight lean oppose. I have mixed feelings because it's a pretty common parent category, making it helpful for navigation. (Moreover, I think that Sami educator is more defining than Sami schoolteacher). Regardless, Yupik's reason for keeping isn't a good reason to keep or create categories. Please review WP:EGRS before making more categories. Mason (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assassinated Baloch journalists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. There's no need to diffuse the intersection of ethnity, cause of death, nationality, and occupation. Mason (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. While Dimadick is right, Marco's point about the articles being about Pakistan are correct too. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Abdi İpekçi[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:Shared name Mason (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Murdered Cumhuriyet columnists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: 2x upmerge. I don't think we ought to diffuse murdered journalists by whether they worked for a specific journal. Mason (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:North African-Jewish diaspora[edit]

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) 11:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: North African Jews is a redirect to Maghrebi Jews. Egyptian Jews are already in the tree of Middle Eastern Jews. Aldij (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2024 (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.

North Asia[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete/redirect, the content in these categories is broader than North Asia which is not very helpful, e.g. about Russia as a whole, or the Soviet Union as a whole. Even the Japanese Empire is among its former countries. The only content that really belongs is about Siberia, which already has its own categories, except for Category:Exploration of Siberia. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. If you hadn't nominated them, I would have done it sooner or later. NLeeuw (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish anti-Zionism in the Arab world[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, the two categories have a largely overlapping scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:North African people of Jewish descent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Antisemitism by region[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turkish telenovelas[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. Telenovelas are basically the same as soap operas. The only difference between the two is length of series. Telenovelafan215 (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Then I guess the category was emptied after this nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 16:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sámi schoolteachers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. there's only one person in this category which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


April 27[edit]

Category:Azusa Pacific Cougars football seasons[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Category lacks subjects. Let'srun (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now, without objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available. Preferably also merge to Category:College football seasons. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why creating and merging to a brand-new category called "College football seasons" with only a very very very tiny fraction of the actual ones that have articles being entered is an absolutely inappropriate option has been explained several times already. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pourashavas of Bangladesh[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Redundant: "Pourashava" means municipality in Bengali. Bolideleoi (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sikh warriors[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename and purge, in 1849 the Sikhs ceased to have power in Punjab, the Sikh Empire was merged into British India. The category also contains military personnel of India who happen to be Sikhs, e.g. Jagjit Singh Aurora, they should be purged as a matter of trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What do you think this category is supposed to contain right now? And what do you think the category should contain?
Because what I am seeing is an inappropriate intersection of the Category:People by nationality tree and the Category:People by religion tree
Category:People by nationality > Category:People by occupation and nationality > Category:Military personnel by nationality > Category:Warriors by nationality > Category:Indian warriors > Category:Sikh warriors
Category:People by religion > Category:People by religion and nationality > Category:Sikhs by nationality > Category:Indian Sikhs > Category:Sikh warriors
Even the Category:People by ethnicity tree is mixed up in it because of parent Category:Punjabi people, but that could easily be Purged.
The word "Sikh" thus acquires a double meaning, namely adherents of Sikhism and subjects of the Sikh Empire or Sikh Confederacy. As you noted, The category also contains military personnel of India who happen to be Sikhs, e.g. Jagjit Singh Aurora. Therefore, the current name is ambiguous. The renaming proposal will not resolve that ambiguity. If we are to identify them with the Sikh Empire as you mentioned in the rationale, then we should alt rename to Category:Military personnel of the Sikh Empire. This would be in line with my proposal A to rename the parent Category:Sikh military to Category:Military personnel of the Sikh Empire, with possibly a separate category for Category:Military personnel of the Sikh Confederacy. NLeeuw (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Oh I see you already created Category:Military personnel of the Sikh Empire as a subcategory of Category:Sikh warriors 3 days ago. Shall we also create Category:Military personnel of the Sikh Confederacy and diffuse the rest? NLeeuw (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the proposal my response is predictable: I think the category is supposed to contain Sikh warriors while the Sikhs were self-governing, i.e. governing the Punjab region in which they were in the majority. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote: there wasn't really any such thing as military personnel of the Sikh Confederacy since the military was primarily organized per member state. They just joined forces upon need. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
while the Sikhs were self-governing, i.e. governing the Punjab region in which they were in the majority. I'm afraid that is an WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Political and military control over an area never perfectly coincides with the area where a certain ethnic, linguistic, religious etc. group lives or lived. That is the fiction of the modern nation-state, that you can have population and state borders coincide. E.g. there never was a time when all inhabitants of the "Netherlands" were "Dutch" by ethnicity, language, nationality or whatever, nor did they ever all adhere to exactly the same religion. Crosscats of people by nationality, by religion, by ethnicity and by language are always inappropriate for that reason.
If confederacies / confederations do not have military personnel, how come we've got: Category:Confederate States of America military personnel, Category:Swiss military personnel by century before 1848 (when Switzerland transformed from a confederation to a federation) etc.? Besides, there is an article about Dal Khalsa (Sikh Army). NLeeuw (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is more than likely that the area that the Sikhs controlled did not exactly match with the spread of their religion. But that does not matter for the articles which are clearly about Sikh warriors defending their territories. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote: Category:16th-century Swiss military personnel is vague enough about how the military is organized, just like Category:Sikh warriors. It is not Category:16th-century military personnel of the Swiss Confederacy. On the other hand the Confederate States of America never seem to have had separate armies per state. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting simultaneous with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Sikh military.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sikh military[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Renaming (A) may be a good idea because of parents Category:Sikh Empire and Category:Military by former country, and siblings in Category:Military by former country. However, as @Marcocapelle pointed out at Speedy, this requires more discussion because there is lots of content in the category that pre-dates the Sikh Empire. Moreover, Dharamyudh (Sikhism) (an article I wrote some years ago) is a religious concept, and does not belong solely to the Sikh Empire as a state. Alternately, we could also decide that this is just an WP:ARBITRARYCAT that should be deleted (B). Also, I think that the two recently created children Category:Military units and formations of the Sikhs and Category:Wars involving the Sikhs may be WP:ARBITRARYCATs, which will also have to be renamed (A) or deleted (B). Category:Sikh warriors may be a valid category (if it passes WP:EGRS), but not all those within the military of the Sikh Empire were necessarily adherents of Sikhism, so unless renamed & rescoped, that subcategory should be removed from this tree. Please indicate your preference, as both seem workable solutions to the current issues. NLeeuw (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a difficult one, because the Sikhs dominated (parts of) Punjab, but did not have a consistent political structure in that region during the two centuries that this category tree is about. They did have military though, to defend their territories. The period covers the Early Mughal–Sikh wars until the Afghan–Sikh wars and it is only during the latter wars that there was first a Sikh Confederacy and later a Sikh Empire. Deletion or purging would certainly be counter-productive because it would arbitrarily break the military history of the region. At most diffuse by different periods. An alternative in a completely different direction is renaming to Category:Sikh military (1621–1849). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't think we should be categorising military history by religious denomination. That's kinda like creating Category:Anabaptist military and then throwing Münster rebellion and Anabaptist riot in there, as if those were carried out by the Armed Forces of the same "state". They weren't.
    We could split up by state, e.g. Category:Wars involving the Sikh Confederacy and Category:Wars involving the Sikh Empire. I would definitely support that. I could add that as Option C to the nom. NLeeuw (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The comparison with Anabaptists is unfair because the two articles you mentioned are situated at two different places and the Anabaptists held power in only one of them. Hypothetically, if they would have maintained longer in Münster, and if there they would have been called "the Anabaptists" by historians as belligerant in wars, then by all means Category:Anabaptist military would have been a valid category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it is fair, because as you mentioned, the Sikh Empire is a different state than the Sikh Confederacy, and formations such as the Akal Sena are even older, but did not yet have their own state; they were in rebellion against the Mughal Empire. (I suppose that's what you are referring to by your suggestion to start counting form 1621?).
      At any rate, we should avoid categorising military personnel by religion per WP:EGRS. A military or armed group is either always connected to a state, or usually intends to form its own state or quasi-state, and sometimes already operates a proto-state or quasi-state (even gangs and mafia can have territories of influence where they extract 'protection money', i.e. tribute). (It is for this reason that we have maintained Military personnel of Fooland rather than Military personnel from Fooland conventions; their service to Fooland defines them, not their birth or residence in Fooland).
      The Akal Sena was such a group, whose military aspects were defined by their loyalty to Guru Hargobind, and their pursuit to establish an independent Sikh state (the First Sikh State arose in 1709). The personal religious beliefs of the individual soldiers in the Akal Sena are WP:NONDEFINING for the group as a military force in service of a guru and a proto-state in the Punjab region. NLeeuw (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may have started as a rebellion, but so did the Dutch Republic which is in retrospect said to have started in the 1570s while it was only recognized by Spain in 1648. There is usually a grey area between rebellion and independence. For the Sikhs independence presumably started in 1606 with the Akal Takht and the first battle against the Mughal Empire taking place in 1621, the Battle of Rohilla. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also this follow up discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am relisting this simultaneous with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 20#Category:Sikh warriors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian cuisine by region[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Tweaking category names to be more representative of their intended usage. As they stand currently, I believe that the categories could be misunderstood as not aligning with Brazil's official regions. I hope to remedy that with this change. BaduFerreira (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to feminism[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Consensus was reached at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 10#Category:Anti-feminism to rename Category:Opposition to feminism to Category:Antifeminism, but Category:Opposition to feminism was never tagged. I have also tagged a subcategory, Category:Opposition to feminism in South Korea, per C2C. It also has a subcategory, which I have also brought to discussion. Courtesy pings to @Queen of Hearts and Pppery (as participants in the discussion at WT:CFDW) and @AHI-3000, Marcocapelle, Smasongarrison, and Nederlandse Leeuw (as participants in the original CfD). HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support AHI-3000 (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People's peers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The term "people's peers" is chiefly informal, while the new title is unambiguous as to its scope and resembles other similar category names, e.g. "Peers appointed by [monarch]". — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Israeli Arab Jews[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The term 'Arab Jews' is politically contested, often by Zionists or by Jews with roots in the Arab world who prefer to be identified as Mizrahi Jews. This category may inappropriately label persons. Aldij (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The small amount of articles in this category illustrates the point. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Accountability software[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Not enough content to warrant a category. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scareware[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Given how much overlap between the two categories there is I don't think these concepts are distinct enough to warrant both. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Continental Army soldiers from North Carolina[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Delete; this seems to be the only category by state (colony?) for Army soldiers. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative: if there is enough support for the idea, this category should be expanded and similar ones should be created too - in which case it would be a tree similar to Category:Continental Army officers from the Thirteen Colonies. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Estonian numismatists[edit]

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]
    These categories also show users which articles still need to be created in the English Wikipedia based on the categories in other language Wikipedias. For example, I was surprised by how many articles we are still missing for Estonian numistamists in enwp. Obliterating the categories won't help people with that.
    On a side note, I was also surprised by how few of the people in the same category in other language wps had properly filled out items in Wikidata that could be used to query numistamists from these places, even when they are in the properly titled categories in other wps. To me, this looks like a very good reason to get people together to expand and create articles on these people in enwp, filling out the categories, instead of deleting the categories. - Yupik (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Albanian, Algerian, Azerbaijani, Czechoslovak, Jordanian, Latvian, New Zealand Serbian, Slovak, Sri Lankan, but ...
  • Leave - Belarusian, Estonian, Lithuanian Lajmmoore (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Leave... what? Leave out? Leave in? NLeeuw (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw - apologies for the late reply. My opinion is that all the numismatist by nationalisty categories should remain, but I also recognise that compromise is important, so I would would suggested that the Belarusian, Estonian and Lithuanian categories are kept (since they have more than one person in each), and the others deleted if need be Lajmmoore (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If you merge the Jordanian, Slovak, Czechoslovak, Belarusian, Algerian, and Albanian numismatists, you also need to put them into categories for their nationalities, like Category:Jordanian people or a subcategory. It would be wrong to take these people out of their nationality categories entirely. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Habitats Directive Species[edit]

Nominator's rationale: While "HD" is a proper noun, "HDS" is not. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining characterstic. If kept, rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of ♡ | speak 19:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Marcocapelle: "Species described in year" and "IUCN vulnerable species" categories are not defining characteristics, either, but those are widely used. How are those acceptable but this isn't? For the record, I oppose deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recipients of the Sahitya Akademi Award[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. Corresponding lists already exist. PepperBeast (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep: It looks like the nominator has no understanding of the importance of Sahitya Akademi Awards in India. While List article may exist, it is important to have this category for the recipients. The award is presented every year to writers of the most outstanding books of literary merit published in any of the 22 languages separately. Nobel prize list articles also exists, as well as categories for recipients of each categories of Nobel prizes.
    -- Tinu Cherian - 11:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Its standing isn't like that of the Nobel Prize. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Volodimerovichi family[edit]

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.  Done. 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]
    • In that case I would prefer merge as nominated. We could hypothetically create a "family of" for every grand prince but it would just overlap with Category:Rurikids. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Marcocapelle Family life and children of Vladimir I is the only "Family of" main article of a (grand) prince of Kiev. So I'm not worried about having to create a "family of" category for every grand prince as long as there is no "family of" main article for every grand prince. Moreover, it arguably merits a category on account of his many wives and children, and subsequent princely branches directly and exclusively descended from him. That is quite uncommon in Kievan Rus' history. NLeeuw (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I have initiated the RM at Talk:Family life and children of Vladimir I#Requested move 10 April 2024. I'll ping the relevant users. NLeeuw (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So far everyone seems to be supporting the RM. We'll see what happens. NLeeuw (talk) 06:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The fact that the article exists, with this name, does not mean a category should also exist. I still think it is rather arbitrary to split off one particular "family" from Category:Rurikids. Ultimately Rurikids is the family. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Intersex transgender people[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Redundant, as all intersex people are LGBT. Editor has been warned about their alternative definition of LGBTQI+ User_talk:Bohemian_Baltimore#Category:Pansexual women#Aromanticism_and_Asexuality_are_the_A_of_LGBTQIA+_and_Intersex_is_the_I_and_is_inherently_an_LGBTQIA+_identity Mason (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like the other comments, I support this merger. These categories were erroneously created and this needs to be corrected. Historyday01 (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read WP:EGRS. It lays out the requirements for intersections related to ethnicity, gender, race, sexuality, and disability. It isn't a question of whether these people exist; it's whether the academic literature says that this is a DEFINING intersection. Mason (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smasongarrison: And we need to be willing to do teamwork to find such academic literature. If you do believe that these people are real, trying to search for the literature first, preferably on Google Scholar, is definitely more reasonable before nominating any EGRS intersectional category for deletion and/or merging.
    On Google Scholar, a simple search for the string "intersex transgender people" does not give much relevant results, but that does not refute the existence of such academic literature. It's just very difficult to find, and also very difficult to make and publish because of censorship, erasure, discrimination, and many other reasons. — CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 12:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW: I already looked (using my university's library resources) and agree that there is not much. That is why I asked if others had found any. However, the fact that it is difficult to find is evidence against the topic meeting the EGRS criteria.
    > But, such categories should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a defining topic that has already been established in sources as academically or culturally significant in its own right.
    Difficulty to publish suggests that there isn't a critical mass of academics who publish about the topic. The category already needs to be established as defining in sources, which again, I don't think it is yet. Perhaps in the future it will be, but until then I don't think it means the criteria. Mason (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I strongly oppose the erasure of asexual and intersex people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender and the subsequent eradication of any categories that mention LGBT intersex and asexual people. Being both LGBT and intersex or LGBT and asexual is a relevant and defining intersection of two oppressed groups, a minority within a minority. Likewise, there are many intersex people who identify as cis/hetero or straight and many asexuals who identify as cis/heteroromantic or straight. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not erasure of people who are asexual and LGBTQIA. It is literally in the acronym already. Mason (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smasongarrison Yes, it is erasure. And "LGBT" is the standard acronym used for articles and categories for Wikipedia. Not all asexual people are gay, lesbian, bi, or transgender. Gay asexual men exist. Lesbian asexual women exist. Biromantic asexuals exist. Transgender asexuals exist. Just as there are asexuals who identify as straight and/or hetero. There needs to be a way to describe and acknowledge the reality of asexuals who are LGB and/or T. A marginalized group within a marginalized group. As a compromise, I'd be fine with merging the LGBT categories but keeping the L, G, B, and T subcategories. Those are undoubtedly valid. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bohemian Baltimore: I totally agree. I hope we can gather more support and achieve consensus from a neutral point of view to oppose deletion of this of category. I left a message on your talk page for the same. — CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 16:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose "All intersex people are LGBT" is a blatant assumption made without listening to all intersex people, and made on basis of only the acronyms LGBTI+, LGBTQI+, LGBTQIA+, LGBTQIAP+, LGBTQIAP+, LGBTQ2SIA+, LGBTQ2SIAP+, etc.
Many intersex people are not LGBTQ+, such as Betsy Driver, Lisa Lee Dark, Sally Gross, Esther Morris Leidolf, Dan Christian Ghattas, Sarah Gronert, Phoebe Hart, Bonnie Hart.
Bonnie Hart has herself said:

"I’m Bonnie Hart, I’m a woman, and I’m kind of straight-ish. Being intersex has nothing to do with gender identities or presentations, or sexual orientation. Intersex people identify as female, male, both, and all sorts of identities between the binary. It’s a lived experience"

— at the 2014 Sydney Mardi Gras Parade[1]
The LGBQIAP+ acronym includes only those intersex people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer (non-binary, genderfluid, agender, polygender, pangender, and so on) and/or polyamorous, asexual, graysexual, ace-spec, aromantic, grayromantic, aro-spec, and so on. Intersex people who are straight, monoamorous, cisgender, binary, and/or allosexual and so on, and rest of the non-LGBTQ+ intersex people have constantly stated again and again that they are not lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer, and hence they are not LGBTQ+.
Just like there are many overlaps between and among all groups of people everywhere, there are many overlaps between groups of LGBTQ+ people and non-LGBTQ+ people, whether they are intersex or endosex, cisgender or transgender, binary or non-binary or agender. All ethically good people's sexualities, biological sex, and genders must be respected. — CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 09:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indian massacres[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge/redirect, it looks like the scope of the two categories coincides. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom Mason (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge given that main article is List of Indian massacres in North America. I don't think that title is very helpful though, as the scope is both of and by "Indians". But that should be discussed at its talk page, not here. NLeeuw (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there have been massacres in India... so the category name is ambiguous. This category name should be salted, so that India cannot use this category name either. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that "Indian" is ambiguous, so I'd rather stick to merge as nominated rather than reverse merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcocapelle (talk • contribs) 06:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States[edit]

Nominator's rationale The category should be renamed to match the main article, List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For sure "Native American tribes" is clearer than "tribes in the United States". However "unrecognized" is clearer than "self-identify" because tribes that are recognized also self-identify as such but that is obviously not in scope here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle They aren't tribes though. They are organizations. To incorrectly call them "tribes" implies that they are indeed tribes but are merely waiting to be recognized. That's a POV. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Opposed -
    Dear Wikipedia Editors,
    I am writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed amendment that seeks to rename the category “Unrecognized tribes in the United States” to “Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes.” This change not only misrepresents our tribe but also undermines the historical and cultural recognition we have long held.
    The Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe of Wampanoag Nation has a well-documented history in Plymouth, Bourne, Massachusetts dating back thousands of years. We still have care and custody of our sacred places, burial grounds and our 1838 Meetinghouse, one of 3 built for the Tribe after the arrival of the colonizers. Our continuous presence and stewardship of these lands are recognized by historical records,deeds and treaties and so on. Additionally, our status is acknowledged by the two MA federal tribes, the Commission on Indian Affairs, Plymouth, Bourne and the Commonwealth which affirms our legitimacy beyond mere self-identification.
    The proposed renaming of the category on Wikipedia is not only inaccurate of many but also insulting. It disregards the deep cultural and ancestral ties we have to our land—ties that are integral to our identity and existence. Labeling us as an organization that self-identifies as a Native American tribe fails to recognize these ties and the acknowledgment we have received from authoritative entities.
    Mislabeling our tribe and any other legitimate Tribes in this manner can lead to the spread of hate, misinformation and further marginalization. It is crucial that platforms like Wikipedia, which serve as a global source of information, ensure the accuracy and integrity of the content they host.
    Tribes without legislative recognition often face significant administrative hurdles to gain federal recognition, and being labeled as "self-identified" can add to these challenges by casting doubt on our legitimacy.
    We face persistent disparagement on platforms like Wiki All the while we are still walking the path to recognition.
    The lack of recognition does not protect tribes from discrimination or persecution, and the term "self-identified" can perpetuate these issues by invalidating their identity.
    The term "self-identified" can be problematic for tribes like the Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe, especially in states like Massachusetts that lack a legislative recognition process, for several reasons: diminished sovereignty, historical erasure, legal implications, administrative challenges, discrimination and persecution.
    It's important for platforms like Wikipedia to use terminology that accurately reflects the status and history of tribes, especially those with longstanding recognition by other tribes and federal entities, rather than terms that can lead to misinterpretation and misrepresentation of their identity and rights. The Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe's situation exemplifies the need for careful consideration of how tribes are categorized and described in public and legal contexts.
    We urge you to consider the implications of this change and to seek a category name that respects and reflects the recognized status of tribes like the Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe. We are open to dialogue and collaboration to find a solution that honors the truth of our history and existence. Goldendragonfly77 (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per WP:C2D. NLeeuw (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I think that this rename has major negative connotations that are unwarrented. Category:Unrecognized tribes does the same thing without the connotation. Mason (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What negative connotations? "Unrecognized tribes" doesn't work because these organizations are not actually tribes. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mason and Marcocapelle. While I understand the idea behind the "self-id" part, I think it should be on a case-by-case basis, rather than a blanket statement on all unrecognized groups. Self-ID also carries highly negative connotations, as Mason stated, and I don't think that warrants being a blanket statement. "Unrecognized" is also by far the most common term in literature, afaik, however I don't have any data to back that up. PersusjCP (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is self-id a negative? It is simply describing that we don't have a citation to support their claims. I disagree with the statement that recognized tribes self-identify. The process to gain recognition is rigorous and recognized tribes, at least those federally recognized, have to document their continuous direct connection with the original tribes that were here prior to and during colonial contact. With no direct proof connecting them they are therefore self-identifying. They may very well share a heritage and be descendants but they cannot verify by showing a direct connection. That is only a negative because people on Wikipedia and even some of those who self-identify are trying to push that perspective to distort reality. At no point are we saying they are "pretendians". That would require reliable sources stating it through investigation. Self-identify does not equal "pretendian". --ARoseWolf 13:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying someone "identifies" as something vs "being" something very much does have a negative connotation. It implies it is only in their head. There is even a famous transphobic joke (I identify as an attack helicopter/whatever) about how one's self-ID is meaningless. PersusjCP (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We cannot declare every one of these groups to be tribes; that's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Is there a term you see as more neutral than "identifies"? I don't mind if "self" is removed. Re: transphobia, a Native American tribe is a collective political identity, while a person's gender and sex is an individual identity; the two concepts are completely different from each other. Yuchitown (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
    It's wordy, but I would think along the lines of "claims descent/to be the successor from historical tribe/the aboriginal ___ people" or something like that. Maybe "Organizations that claim descent from Native American tribes." Since "descent"or being the "successor" is generally the more politically accurate idea to what modern day tribes are to historical entities. PersusjCP (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So sorry, but I believe that would be original research since not all the groups claim descent from Native American tribes, like the Una Nation of Mixed-Bloods from Eugene, Oregon, who see themselves as a completely new entity (that is somehow still Native American). Just as a reminder, the corresponding article is List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes, so this proposal isn't charting new territory but trying to bring the category inline with the article. Yuchitown (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah that's a good point, I forgot about them... Okay, I support the current/future wording of "Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes," unless someone else can think of a more neutral, all-applicable wording. Maybe alternatively: get rid of the "self" in "self-identify," but I don't know if that makes it more neutral. Or like, "Orgainzations not recognized as Native American tribes," although that's kind of broad. Unfortunately I think because it is such a contentious topic that it is hard to be truly "neutral" in this. PersusjCP (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see how "self-identifying" could be regarded as problematic, as if they could be somehow "delusional" (although I must say this is the first time I've heard it having any negative connotation).
    But so can "unrecognised", right? Doesn't this imply that that these people are in fact tribes, but the U.S. government is just being 'stubborn, uncooperative and discriminatory' in 'refusing' to recognise them as such? The word "unrecognised" arguably carries a subtle WP:POV in it in favour of recognition, and arguably an implied criticism against the government that has so far not extended it to the applicants. NLeeuw (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. All we can substantiate is that these organizations have collectively have identified as being Native American tribes. We cannot go further and do not have that authority; an outside authority having nothing to do with Wikipedia would have to make that distinction. Saying they identify does not mean none of the groups have Native American ancestry or that none of the groups are respected as successors of historical political tribes. But to collectively say all these groups are "tribes" is WP:OR and beyond our capacity or what we can support through published sources. Yuchitown (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • That does not solve the problem that recognized tribes also identify as being Native American tribes. The question is what distinguishes the two groups and the answer is that one group is recognized and the other group not. Not recognized is the key descriptor here. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned above the article is already named List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. There are already List of federally recognized tribes in the contiguous United States, List of Alaska Native tribal entities, and State-recognized tribes in the United States, which are cross linked in the introduction of List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes. Several federally recognized tribes are also state-recognized, but the general pattern is to go from broadest category into more specific classifications. Yuchitown (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes but this does not address the objection. The objection is not about recognized, it is about unrecognized. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What about "Organizations not recognized as Native American tribes" as I said in another thread here? The only problem is pretty much this applies to anything except federally-and-state recognized tribes, but maybe it is clear enough with context. PersusjCP (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That would include almost every organization on the planet. I’m not being facetious. “Identifying as Native American tribes” is a necessary component. Yuchitown (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've watched this discussion for a few days and tried to understand or see all the perspectives. I disagree with the negative connotation many are trying to place on self-identification and I think that term should defined somewhere on Wikipedia much like other terms have. The fact that it can be negative or potentially be negative shouldn't be considered because anything can be negative depending on who is defining it. What we should be looking at is the literal meaning of self-identification. These entities are the ultimate source of their identification. I know, some will say, The most notable ones did get recognized by reliable sources or government resolutions. But ultimately the source of their legitimacy when you dig into it is the subject entity itself. If they had proof of their connection to the original people they would have gotten federal recognition. So we are left with an entity that identifies itself as Native American. This may be true and it may not be true, it's still self-identification at its foundation. I support the change in title on that basis. Calling them "unrecognized tribes" places a legitimacy on these groups that cannot be verified. It is wholly non-neutral for Wikipedia to be the one conferring legitimacy. Many don't even call themselves tribes. --ARoseWolf 12:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just following up, "self-identified" is as broad and neutral as possible because a vast range of entities are in this category, including many with verified American Indian ancestry such as the Verona Band of Alameda County, Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, and the Yuchi (who are almost all enrolled in the Muscogee (Creek) Nation). Yuchitown (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per what Mason and Marcocapelle said, which is that self-ID can have a highly negative connotation and "unrecognized" is the common term in literature. I've already encountered the issue of self-ID violating BLP in an article. If the category was changed as proposed, it's likely we'd have many more BLP issues in individual articles about people. This may seem like a minor word change, but there are strong negative connotations to saying someone who is Native "self identifies," because the inference is that they are Native in name only or falsely claiming to be Native. A change like this will impact countless articles covered by BLP because articles about Native people typically link to their tribe's article. --SouthernNights (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no consensus in any discussion you can point to that says "self-identification" is considered a BLP violation. If I remove anything that I believe "can" be considered negative from every BLP on Wikipedia how long do you think it would take before I was community banned? Yet that's what you did based on your own personal opinion, not consensus. That is the worst obvious and most ridiculous example of POV pushing I have ever seen and quite frankly what I consider very much a misuse of the admin tools. It calls into question your neutrality, not on a personal level because we are all biased to some degree, but your willingness to use the tools you were granted to support your bias despite other good faith editors objecting. --ARoseWolf 13:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP guidelines state that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced — whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable — must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." In the case of the article I'm referring to, the recent edits that her tribe supposedly self-identifies absolutely qualified as such which is why I removed them. And I'm hardly the only one who sees it this way -- several editors raised concerns in this very category discussion about such descriptions being seen as negative. For more perspectives on this topic, check out this 2021 research paper published in the American Sociological Association journal (pdf download). Finally, your personal attacks here cross a definite line and violate Wikipedia policy. I strongly advise you do not continue with such attacks. SouthernNights (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Her self-identification as Lipan Apache is not unsourced. We know that her non-profit organization has neither state nor federal recognition. That is a fact, not an opinion. Their identity as a Native group comes purely from their own self-identification, not from government recognition. You referring to "her tribe" is itself a POV and also factually untrue, because it isn't actually a tribe. It's a non-profit organization. There's nothing supposed about it. That's what it is. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If my statements were attacks then so were yours when you attacked good faith editors by declaring us POV pushers. What does that make you pushing your personal point of view? --ARoseWolf 12:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are a number of reasons why this conversation about Native American identity should not be renamed self-identify. Here are the top four in my mind:

1. The term self-identify as proposed is unmistakably negative, intentionally so. It’s negative in that it’s divisive, exclusionary, and demeaning. It attacks a significant part of Indian Country, like Lily Gladstone, by claiming they’re not real Native Americans, only pretending to be ones (of course there’s a page for that). No, it’s not racism, certainly not colorism. It’s crude chauvinism. It says that on one hand there are normal real Native Americans and on the other there are abnormal people who illegitimately and with no more foundation than their own volition identify as Native Americans, on no better basis than folks who identify as attack helicopters (credit Persus). Everybody hates attack helicopter wannabes. Native American, normal, positive. Self-identify Native American, abnormal, negative. The dots connecting the term as proposed to its pejorative roots couldn’t be drawn closer.

2. It effaces the concept of indigeneity. It says Native American is an identity established, not by self-identity, but by the US govt through a CDIB card. It says that Native Americans are creations not of thousands of years of independent existence and identity, but of the power that recently in their history came to occupy their land. Further, that occupying power can take back the identity only it, nobody and nothing else, can confer, as it has demonstrated in the past it can do.

3. The question is much bigger than this discussion setting can possibly do it justice. It’s not just a matter of slightly adjusting the name of a WP page. It’s a matter of possibly stumbling into a big philosophical and political decision due to a slight of hand; that self-identity is just a clearer way of saying not acknowledge by the US. No scholarly citations. No peer-reviewed article(s), it would never cut muster in that environment-- that's why there's none (I checked). Just the argument that, you know, it’s neater to say self-identify than non-recognized. And should it be done, a micro-minority POV has been imposed on a long-settled question of who decides who's Native American. From that point on, Native American identity means US citizenship and a CDIB. Born and raised in Paris and just found out you had a % grandparent with a CDIB, you're in. Born and raised in a historical Indigenous community in, say, Guatemala or Canada and migrated to an enclave of your community in Miami or LA where everybody still speaks your native language, you're out. Of course, it's a settled question that Indian Country is no bigger than the United States and Native American identity is entirely a Unitedstatean question. Not.

4. It goes against a vast and longstanding consensus on the concept of indigenous identity. This discussion has already been had over a much longer period, involving many many more participants, in a much more transparent and deliberative fashion. And a consensus was reached. Then instead of being shelved or secreted away, it was announced to the world and has been in place for years, known today as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UN). This widely publicized consensus speaks directly against the proposal to change the name of this page by declaring that indigenous identity is necessarily self-identify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsideh (talk • contribs) 05:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC) There are more, but I'll stop here for now. Tsideh.:Tsideh Tsideh (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC) — Tsideh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Could you share where on Wikipedia this conversation took place? “It goes against a vast and longstanding consensus on the concept of indigenous identity”: I’ve never seen such a conversation on Wikipedia. Yuchitown (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't see any BLP violation or anything objectively negative about the term self-identify. I do see a big NPOV problem with the current category name as it uses the word "tribes" suggesting in Wikivoice that these are actual tribes in the context of indigenous American tribes. Doug Weller talk 11:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that is my biggest concern even more than the self-identity argument that seems to have developed. Some of these are organizations that have filed for 501C3 status with the same government they decry as holding them back from recognition. While some are heritage groups trying to bring awareness to Native American topics. Others may have legitimate claims. Still others are pretendian organizations seeking financial gain on the backs of Native Americans. The one thing that is common between them all is they cannot provide evidence which link them to the sovereign nations they claim to be part of with any continuity. Had they been able to do so they would have gained the political recognition from the US government to be able to speak for the respective nation they associate with. Without a doubt Wikipedia should not legitimize them in Wiki-voice as Native American/American Indian tribes, recognized or unrecognized, self-identified or otherwise and even if reliable sources that are not owned by legitimately recognized nations identify them as such. --ARoseWolf 17:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. The proposed renaming would result in very awkward-sounding categories that thousands of readers and article subjects could find to be inaccurate, biased, or even offensive.
"Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes" is not wording that is typically used in academic literature.
Federal recognition is a controversial topic that should be discussed in the article text itself. It should not be forced into category names.
Category names should be based on serious non-biased anthropological and sociological research, and should not be based on decisions made by bureaucratic governments that may not always be fair.
I primarily focus on ethnic groups in the Middle East and Balkans, and categorizing thousands of individuals and entire clans as "self-identified" would be extremely offensive. For example, what if Serbia, Iran, or others do not officially recognize certain ethnic groups that Western anthropologists would certainly recognize as genuine ethnic or ethnoreligious groups? For example, if we were to label Yazidis or Alevis as self-identified minorities, that would be completely unencyclopedic, POV, and totally unsuitable for Wikipedia.
There are also many unrecognized ethnic groups in China, since the Chinese (PRC) government officially recognizes only 56 ethnic groups. Should we also categorize every single individual from those unrecognized minorities as "self-identified minorities"? Certainly not, as that would be very awkward, controversial, and out of line with what Wikipedia categories should really be all about.
Another good reason to oppose this renaming is the WP:CONCISE guideline. We shouldn't make category names overly long and complicated.
The same should apply to Native Americans, First Nations, and other indigenous peoples in North America.
I would also suggest taking a look at this book which discusses this issue in detail: Forgotten Tribes: Unrecognized Indians and the Federal Acknowledgment Process.
Equiyamnaya (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NDNID was written by members of the Indigenous peoples of North America Wikiproject. It was thoughtfully constructed and thoroughly discussed to aid non-Native editors on Wikipedia gain an understanding of what being Native American is. Native American identity is not a matter of race or ethnicity. There is not a unified "Native American" ethnic identity. So the ethnic groups mentioned would not be an accurate comparison. This should not be a one-size-fits-all approach. --ARoseWolf 13:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To label all of the entities in the category tribes is definitely original research. The article was renamed to accurately and honestly include groups such as the Kaweah Indian Nation, Ani-Stohini/Unami, and Vinyard Indian Settlement as well as the Mississippi Choctaw Indian Federation, Brothertown Indians, and Verona Band of Alameda County (i.e. those with no demonstrated connection to historic Native American communities to those with well-documented connections). I've cited Miller's book, but it was also written in 2006; many of these groups have formed since then. This lengthy discussion will probably result in "No Consensus"; however, all of the editors who actively contribute to and improve Native American topics on Wikipedia have voted to "Support" the renaming. Yuchitown (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't seen any opposition to using "Native American" instead of "in the United States" so we seem to have a minimal consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would absolutely be opposed to changing the category to "Category:Unrecognized Native American tribes" which is what seems to be implied here. --ARoseWolf 12:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Mason and Marco. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism by year[edit]

Nominator's rationale: A previous discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_23#Category:Post–World_War_II_synagogue_architecture brought to light that there was a coding error in {{Synagogues completed in year category header}}. After fixing, synagogue categories by year only populate "Judaism in 19XX" from 1800. Likewise, {{Synagogues completed in decade category header}} now only populates the decade categories in Judaism by decade from 1700. I suggest moving the decade cutoff to 1800, and making similar changes to {{Jewish organization establishment category}} and {{Jewish organization establishment category by decade}} with the same cut-off date. This will empty the nominated categories, as there are no other contents. I looked through Pogroms and categorised some missing ones in Judaism by date, but did not find enough to make the nominated categories useful. – Fayenatic London 11:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this will leave three subcategories and two articles in the 18th century so it does not require very granular diffusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can we at least merge these categories into centuries in Judaism categories? It seems like some articles were removed from categories not manually but just mistakes in a template. Liz Read! Talk! 19:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If these articles can be found they should certainly be added to the century category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shipwrecks of North Asia[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, currently only one article in the category, which is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, in the absence of humorous comments about shipwrecks and navigation. – Fayenatic London 11:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Hazard to navigation. Herostratus (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British people by descent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename for consistency, the subcategories are "by descent". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is not an established enough convention. Not all sibling categories only contain "by descent" subcategories; especially the US categories contain a mix of descent and ethnic subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cornish people by descent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional animals by taxon[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No reason has been given why this unnecessarily WP:NARROWCAT has been created. It only contains two taxons which is not enough to justify an entire separate category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Fictional animals by taxon, but merge Category:Fictional invertebrates and Category:Fictional vertebrates into Category:Fictional animals by taxon. AHI-3000 (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately doing that is just shuffling around deck chairs and makes no real difference. But I think the more longstanding categories (since 2006) should take precedence over your new 2024 category, not things be merged just because you want your category to be prominent. You have just stated an opinion but not provided a reason to back why taxon is better than the vertebrate/invertebrate split. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: My suggestion is to leave "Fictional animals by taxon" with 8 subcategories instead of 2, if your only argument is that it's too small right now. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the nominated and the alt proposal could be an improvement, but I prefer the alternative, in order to keep taxa together as a recognizable attrribute. I have tagged the two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: So do you support my suggestion? AHI-3000 (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American politicians who are the most recent member of their party to hold statewide office[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Overcategorization. This is not a defining characteristic for any of these individuals, it's trivial, and narrow. Its also temporary. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Let’s consider what Wikipedia:Overcategorization defines as non-trivial characteristics: “For biographical articles, it is usual to categorize by such aspects as their career, origins, and major accomplishments. In contrast, someone's tastes in food, their favorite holiday destination, or the number of tattoos they have would be considered trivia.” It is indisputably a major accomplishment and notable career event to have been the very last member of a political party to win a statewide election. These people were alone and remain alone as members of their parties with statewide power, reflecting ideological transitions and resource disparities. That is why this trait is noted in the introduction of almost every biography under the category. It does not remotely compare with arbitrary preferences or traits, and you have failed to elaborate about why it should. You have essentially conceded that there is no formal rule whatsoever against categories which are so-called “temporary.” Of course elections and generational turnover mean that pages will eventually be swapped out. In many cases in this category, this will likely take years to decades - underscoring how the category is illustrative of partisan leans and relevant to understanding both the unique "maverick" identities of some politicians as well as the electoral geography of the United States. Wikipedia is updated to reflect current events. This category, along with many other categories and biographies, is no different. Finally, it is hardly narrow to cover 23 politicians from 23 22 different states and multiple decades. 1Matt20 (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Guido Gezelle[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This epon category has the poet and the one of their colleagues. That's not helpful for navigation, considering that they already link to each other. Mason (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


April 26[edit]

Category:Virginia dynasty[edit]

Nominator's rationale: per WP:NARROWCAT. The category is a limited scope to only four people. There will not be further additions to this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Five articles are more than enough for a category. Dimadick (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean to delete, it does not seem a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sikh terrorism in Austria[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge for now, currently the category has only one article, that is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beringia[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, anachronistic content, Beringia is a concept from prehistoric geography, but the category only contains current-day geography. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Marcocapelle's definition contradicts the maim article Beringia, which defines it as a current region. Dimadick (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not. It was one coherent region because the Bering Street was dry land. That is no longer the case. Beringia is not usually on any current-day map. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish communities destroyed in the Holocaust[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Disclaimer: I would like to say that this is a sensitive topic that should not be treated lightly. I am going to make some observations that seek to address what I see as inappropriate categorisation practices, but I thereby do not seek to deny or diminish or trivialise the severity of The Holocaust. That said: I think this is an WP:ARBITRARYCAT that should be listified, and every entry supported by WP:RS.
Detailed explanation
Firstly: We cannot say that a city or town, which had at some point a "Jewish community" (something which should also be properly defined first in terms of numbers and characteristics) living in it, should in its entirety be included in this category. The precedent Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 27#Category:Hungarian communities in Slovakia comes to mind: a minority community within a populated place or administrative region cannot be WP:DEFINING for the identity of that place or region as a whole. This is a wider issue within the Category:Historic Jewish communities in Europe tree, but also in similar category trees of "communities" that categorise entire places or regions based on a minority of ethnic group X living within its borders.
Secondly, what exactly "destroyed" means is also not clear, as there have also been many Holocaust survivors. Is a "community" only destroyed when 100% of its members did not survive the Holocaust, or is 90% enough? I'm sorry if that seems like a strange or inappropriate question, but it is one we need to ask to avoid having arbitrary percentages, and thus WP:ARBITRARYCATs. It is the same reason why we can't have Category:Fooian-speaking countries just because, say, more than 50% of inhabitants in country X speaks Fooian, because '50%' is arbitrary. (So I had those categories all renamed last year as well).
What "destroyed" means exactly may also vary. A few years ago, there was a long dispute on Dutch Wikipedia about "List of castles destroyed by the French during the Franco-Dutch War" (it had many different titles, all of which were quite arbitrary and untenable; link: nl:Wikipedia:Te beoordelen pagina's/Toegevoegd 20201103#Lijst van kastelen in Nederland, die door de Fransen rond 1672 of 1794 verwoest zijn). There, it turned out that some castles were rather "damaged" than "destroyed", or "demolished" outside of combat, and that a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH was involved in developing the list. Like this category, that list mostly sought to highlight and quantify the extent of the destruction wrought by a group of perpetrators, but failed to properly define what it was exactly about. "Community" is an even vaguer concept than "castle", and how one can "destroy a community" is really a question I would rather like to leave up to sociologists than us category Wikipedians.
If we listify this category, we could at least provide reliable sources in which scholars explain what they mean; categories cannot do that for us. NLeeuw (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the category contains articles about current-day European cities and towns rather than articles about pre-1945 Jewish communities. No objection against listification per se, but I think this task is far too big for someone to start with on a short term. The category content may be listed at the talk page of a relevant WikiProject before deletion, for someone, or maybe for multiple editors together, to start listifying in their own pace. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like a good idea. Perhaps the creator @Eladkarmel is willing to do so? NLeeuw (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These populated places are not notable for being Jewish communities. Dimadick (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natural history[edit]

more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: delete, Natural history used to be what we call Natural sciences today, the umbrella term of biology, physics, chemistry etc. The current meaning of natural history is very fuzzy. The content of these categories largely overlaps with Category:Environment of Bangladesh, Category:Environment of Barbados etc. This is a follow-up nomination after Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_11#Natural_history. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. These are WP:ARBITRARYCATs which do not aid navigation. NLeeuw (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a confused nomination citing another confused discussion as precedent. There is certainly a reasonable intersection between the natural sciences, such as the biology, botany, zoölogy, paleontology, geology, etc. of a place, and the place that they represent. The nominator here and in the previous discussion linked above notes that the term "natural history" is somewhat synonymous with "natural sciences", which would be a valid reason to move these categories or change the titles to "natural history of foo", but not to delete them unless they simply duplicated "natural sciences of foo" or "environment of foo", or a similarly-named set of categories.
But in many instances there are no such categories; I came here from WikiProject West Virginia, and there does not seem to be a similar category combining the included articles or subcategories. The overlap mentioned by the nominator does not exist in this instance, and probably does not in many others. It makes no sense to use the supposed overlap with categories that do not exist as a justification for deleting others that do. The second comment above, supporting deletion, is for a completely different reason: the supposition that there is no valid intersection between the natural sciences of an area, region, or country.
The nominator seems to suppose that there is value in collecting these articles and subcategories, but that these are redundant and mistitled; the other person does not think there is any point in collecting them in the first place. This is the same pair of contradictory reasons provided by the same two editors in the above-linked discussion being cited as precedent. I also submit that said discussion involved only these two and one other editor, and so does not set a very strong precedent for deciding the fate of hundreds of existing categories. P Aculeius (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Natural history of West Virginia consists like its siblings of biota, flora, fauna, forests which are or belong in environment. There are also geology and paleontology subcategories which are very unrelated. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are related in the sense that "environment" is related to both geology and paleontology, and readers might be served by finding a category or container category for these items together, grouped by state, region, or country. Just as a category for "natural sciences" groups these topics (or parent categories containing them), someone studying a particular place wold benefit from being able to find a grouping of biology, geology, paleontology, etc. relating to that place.
    It also makes sense to group the natural sciences away from cultural topics, such as history, politics, education, etc., rather than just having one overarching category for the place containing all of the subcategories or topics relating to it. For example, it makes sense to have "Fauna of West Virginia", "Geology of West Virginia", "Cheat Canyon", and "Mingo Oak" grouped together with each other, but not with "List of governors of West Virginia", "Taxation in West Virginia" and "Tennessee Gas Pipeline".
    As far as the title is concerned, alternative formulations—"environment of", for example—can be a bit vague; is a list of species part of "environment", or the geography of the Appalachians? Is paleontology a topic within "environment"? It seems to me that "natural history" is the broadest formulation, as "natural sciences" might be understood to have a more limited scope; a salamander or a canyon might not sound like it fits in the latter category—although I suppose someone unfamiliar with the term "natural history" might regard it similarly. Either way, deleting the category seems unhelpful to readers. P Aculeius (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per P Aculeius, whose arguments have completely convinced me that these categories are both useful and not redundant. Whether "natural history" or "natural science" is the better title I'm unsure of, but whichever is deletion is not the answer. Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't any grouping in science that treats biology (flora and fauna), geology and paleontology as a coherent group. Neither "natural history" nor "natural sciences" are commonly used for such combinations. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet, it seems that all of these are included under the headings of "natural history" and "natural sciences". So are those groupings invalid, or just not the categories that come first to mind when thinking of individual sciences? P Aculeius (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are included under the headings of "natural history" here in Wikipedia categories. But that does not mean anything. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If "natural history" and/or "natural sciences" are valid categories of science, as they seem to be, then it makes sense to group the subjects of these headings by location. Anyone researching places, such as West Virginia, California, Poland, Saudi Arabia, etc. would presumably benefit from finding categories containing sciences related to those specific places, as opposed to history, politics, economics, etc. It may be possible to subdivide "natural history" or "natural sciences" into narrower groups of topics—but that doesn't mean that the overarching categories are of no value to readers. P Aculeius (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all country and continent categories as an unnecessary duplication of existing categories. We should probably keep Category:Natural history and Category:Natural history museums by country‎. But if not deleted, due to lack of consensus, then restore those deleted in the previous nomination. – Fayenatic London 13:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Internet censorship in the Arab world[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Redundant WP:OVERLAPCAT / WP:ARBITRARYCAT. 4/6 items are just redirects which are all already in Category:Internet censorship by country, as is Internet censorship in Syria. That leaves only Internet censorship in the Arab Spring, which should probably be renamed "during" rather than "in", because it was an event, not a location. We could dual merge it to Category:Internet censorship in Africa and Category:Internet censorship in Asia. NLeeuw (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Public baths in the Arab world[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. 5 out of 16 are located in Spain, 1 in Israel, which are not usually considered part of the "Arab world" (itself a contested and arbitrary term). It also seems that "Turkish bath", "Islamic bath" and "Arab(ic) bath" are all lumped together. I think the non-Spain articles are best upmerged for now. For the others, subcategories can be created once they have at least 5 articles. Morocco, Syria, Egypt etc. NLeeuw (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arab military ranks[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Inappropriate intersection of Category:Military ranks by country (where almost all articles are already in), and Category:Arabic words and phrases (where all other articles are in, except Ispahsalar, which is in Category:Persian words and phrases because it's not even an Arabic word). NLeeuw (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a strange mix of military ranks by country and non-military Arab-language titles or offices. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Science and technology in the Arab world[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Redundant WP:OVERLAPCAT. All children are already in siblings Category:Science and technology in Asia by country and Category:Science and technology in Africa by country. Category:Arab inventions is already a child of Category:Asian inventions and Category:African inventions, children of Category:Science and technology in Asia and Category:Science and technology in Africa, respectively. Arabic Wikipedia is not specific or exclusive to the so-called "Arab world"; anyone on Earth can access and edit it (and they do). NLeeuw (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivial intersection, illustrated by a lack of of overarching articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional West Asian people[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 29#Category:Fictional Western European people (all Upmerged) per WP:NONDEFINING and WP:ARBITRARYCAT. NLeeuw (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, European regions do not have natural geographic boundaries and in history the European countries have interacted with each other heavily irrespective of any region definitions. I am not sure if the same applies to Asia. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hindkowan diaspora[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hindkowan families[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sikh monarchs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: dual merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parents seem to be inappropriate but they do fit the content. All Sikhs in this category are Punjabis, all Jats in this category are Sikhs. The content of this category shouldn't be moved out of the Punjabi or Jat tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That they do fit the content is irrelevant; we've got other trees for that. Chand Kaur is already in Category:Punjabi women, for example. Btw Duleep Singh was a Christian for several decades, so we can't assume all of them to have been Sikhs ever. If we really wanna categorise all that in 1 category, then we should rename them Category:Punjabi Sikh Jat emperors or something. NLeeuw (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nomination is to merge Sikh monarchs, so the fact whether or not they were Sikhs becomes moot. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Massacres of indigenous North Americans[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:INDIGENOUS and MOS:RACECAPS Indigenous should be capitalized when referring to or describing people and their citizenship. ARoseWolf 12:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadians of Jordanian descent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, as a duplicate. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be merged too daSupremo 11:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh terrorism by continent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, too few subcategories and articles in this category tree. Merging is not necessary, the subcategories are already in Category:Sikh terrorism by country. Only article 1985 Narita International Airport bombing needs to be moved to Category:Sikh terrorism manually. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Archetypal pedagogy[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, only the eponymous article and Clifford Mayes belong here, and these two are already directly interlinked. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jungian pedagogues[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. I don't think this category is clearly defined, and even if it were, I don't think that having only a single person in the category is helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge per nom, but one of the targets may be deleted (see discussion above this one) and then it will become single merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Psychology educators. The second target should be deleted per Marcocapelle. NLeeuw (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


April 25[edit]

Category:Swedish emigrants to Japan[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Dual speedy upmerge for now. These categories were deleted due to only having one person it in (and is still the case), which wasn't helpful for navigation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_11#More_emigrants Mason (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a tree in which every possible combination has its own category. For example there are no less than 33 articles directly in Category:Swedish emigrants and only 30 subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of ♡ | speak 18:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fashion in India[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Categories out of phase with their siblings in Category:Fashion by country.
These were both speedy-moved from the target names to their current names two weeks ago on C2D grounds because the head articles are at "fashion in country" -- but that should never have happened without wider discussion, because C2D and C2C are in conflict with each other here: with the isolated exception of Georgia, which has an established consensus to diverge from normal standards because of the Georgia-as-in-Tbilisi vs. Georgia-as-in-Atlanta problem, every other sibling category is at "Demonym fashion" rather than "Fashion in Country".
But it's an important principle of category trees that they need to be as consistent as possible so that the location of a category is predictable, so these need to be named in the same format as their siblings. There may be a valid argument that they should all be moved to "Fashion in Country" across the board, so I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody is willing to tackle a comprehensive batch nomination, but there's no legitimate case to be made that these two countries alone should be pushed out of sync with their siblings. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the nominator of the speedy renames above, I should say it was indeed my intention to move all categories to Category:Fashion in Fooland. This was a follow-up to a long-standing reorganisation effort of parent Category:Culture by country and siblings such as Category:Music by country by myself and others. The goal was to move away from ambiguous adjectives, and mention the country's name, as almost all main articles of those categories already did. So I set out to rearrange the Category:Fashion by country tree, starting with the United States and India, which already had main articles that could be speedied. However, I found that several sibling cats such as Category:German fashion had main articles with corresponding titles of Fooian fashion, like German fashion. I was considering whether to BOLDly rename those per WP:TITLECON, but I wasn't sure whether that would be enough, and then I sort of gave up, went on to do other stuff and forgot about it (sorry). I agree that the catnames should be consistent, but then the main article titles should be made consistent first in order to avoid an endless conflict between C2C and C2D. My preference would still be to rename all the main articles to Fashion in Fooland, after which the categories can follow. NLeeuw (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparison Most child categories of Category:Fashion by country do not have a main article, if they contain any articles at all (besides a few subcategories). Although most have Fooian fashion catnames right now, in Commons, all c:Category:Fashion by country subcategories are named Category:Fashion of Fooland. The main articles which are about fashion in/of/from a particular country are about evenly matched in frequency between Fooian fashion (mostly concentrated in European articles) and Fashion in Fooland (from countries around the world, especially Asia). I've allowed for some variation in names, e.g. Japanese street fashion and Genderless fashion in Japan; a great example of inconsistency within the same country category.
Fooian fashion main articles:
  1. Brazilian fashion
  2. Canadian fashion
  3. French fashion (but bold opening sentence "Fashion in France")
  4. German fashion
  5. Israeli fashion
  6. Italian fashion (but Fashion in Milan)
  7. Japanese street fashion
  8. Russian fashion
  9. Swedish fashion
Fashion in Fooland main articles:
  1. Fast fashion in China
  2. Popular fashion in ancient China
  3. Fashion in India
  4. Fashion in Iran
  5. Genderless fashion in Japan
  6. Fashion in Nigeria
  7. Fashion and clothing in the Philippines
  8. Fashion in South Korea
  9. Fashion in the United States (but Indigenous fashion of the Americas, and Native American fashion)
. (Fashion in Barcelona, but doesn't really count for all of Spain)
This is illustrates the problem I ran into: I couldn't really invoke WP:TITLECON, because there was no clear majority naming convention. We would have to discuss it in either a very large discussion, or on a tedious case-by-case basis, neither of which seemed very appealing to me. NLeeuw (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for now per discussion above, without objection to a broader nomination in opposite direction. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:KCIC Line[edit]

Nominator's rationale: One eponymous page. Gonnym (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The parent categories are not appropriate to add to the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sikh terminology[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, this is a whole lot of entirely unrelated terms which have already been dispersed among other subcategories of Category:Sikhism. The only exceptions are Glossary of Sikhism, Patit and Sahajdhari which should be moved to Category:Sikhism. Many "terminology" categories have been deleted before. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


April 24[edit]

Category:20th-century Palestinian philosophers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: 2x upmerge for now. There's not enough content to support diffusing Palestinian philosophers by century (2 people). Using petscan, I only found false positives https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=28100706 Mason (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cleveland Indians owners[edit]

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) Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Remove redirect/undo merge. This category was turned into a redirect by my own error. It was a part of a Cfd I started but this particular category was not meant to be part of it. It should be a part of a larger tree of MLB owners (personnel have their own seperate tree regardless of what the name of the team was/is). Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @HouseBlaster, who closed the Cfd in question. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2024 (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.

British Conservative Jews[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Rename and redirect. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 7#Category:Conservative Judaism in the United Kingdom. – Fayenatic London 21:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:George Gershwin in film[edit]

Nominator's rationale: To match everything else under Category:Film scores by composer. Fuddle (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arab-Jewish diaspora[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Confusion arises between Arab-Jewish ethnicity and the geographical grouping of member countries in the Arab League. Not all Moroccan Jews belong to the Arab-Jewish group, among other examples. Aldij (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States National Recording Registry albums[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The same rationale as last time: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 28#Category:United States National Recording Registry albums. I still see no reason for this category to be active and it is still redudant to Category:United States National Recording Registry recordings. Even if all the album articles were listed under the United States National Recording Registry albums category, that would just leave songs and other miscellaneous records under the United States National Recording Registry recordings category. It is really a crime to have all the inducted recordings under one category? QuasyBoy (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point Espngeek (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category. Let'srun (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; standard cat scheme. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Saying something is standard, so we should keep it, is not a compelling reason. Having only one category is not helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Parallelism matters and should be considered a central pillar of Wikipedia. If this cat merged as nominated, then 1943 Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football team is lost from the tree at Category:College football seasons by team. User:Let'srun's notations here are becoming tiresome and obstructive. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct National Association of Professional Base Ball Players teams[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The NAPBBP has been defunct for over a century. User:Namiba 16:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Let'srun (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rocket Power video games[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only has one article, unlikely to expand. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dutch atheist writers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: parent is Writers on atheism and this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_19#Category:Writers_on_Atheism Mason (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nazi Germany ministers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Fix the rather ungrammatical title of this category and rename it to be consistent the main article, Hitler cabinet (t · c) buidhe 04:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Provincial Women's Hockey League teams[edit]

Nominator's rationale: League was renamed in 2022 Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American people of Zimbabwean descent by occupation[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There's no need to diffuse this category by occupation, when there is only one occupation in it Mason (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, @Marcocapelle I filled it with some other categories so there's no longer just one occupation in it. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ethnic Hungarian politicians outside Hungary[edit]

Nominator's rationale: borderline C2C based on the parent category of People of Hungarian descent and sibling Sportspeople of Hungarian descent‎ Mason (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Asian American billionaires[edit]

Nominator's rationale: As per the closure of Category:American Jewish billionaires recently, this also appears to be a case of WP:OCEGRS and was created by the same editor. Hilariously, it includes Richard Yuengling Jr., who'd surely be surprised at this revelation of his heritage. Chubbles (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assassinated Iranian Kurdish dissidents[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining 4x intersection of ethnicity, political orientation, nationality, and cause of death. This definitely doesn't meet the criteria under WP:EGRS Mason (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, if only because Category:Assassinated Iranian dissidents doesn't currently exist. AHI-3000 (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


April 23[edit]

Category:Drum Corps Associates corps[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The organization was dissolved and the members moved to the All-Age classification of Drum Corps International. I wish to rename it to Former Drum Corps Associates corps for maintaining the grouping for its historicity. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This will be the last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 21:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slavic-American history[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 7#Category:Eastern European diaspora in the United States, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slavic Americans (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slavic diaspora, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 26#Language family diasporas, and many more. This is a classic example of an inappropriate intersection of the Category:People by nationality tree and the Category:People by ethnicity tree. There is no country in the world whose nationals are all native speakers of a language of the same language family. NLeeuw (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, trivial intersection as is obvious from the very small amount of overarching topic articles. Funnily enough, Hunky (ethnic slur) is derived from Hungarian, who are not Slavic at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Archaeological organizations based in the Republic of Ireland[edit]

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: speedy rename as WP:C2E. (non-admin closure) Queen of ♡ | speak 20:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wires got crossed while doing large-scale category organiz(s)ation; move needed to comply with naming conventions for this country's categories – TCMemoire 19:30, 23 April 2024 (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.

Category:Tigers in Meitei culture[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:TRIVIALCAT PepperBeast (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This seems to be about fictional or mythical tigers in Meitei culture, which would not exist if not for the Meitei culture, so this seems to be WP:DEFINING. NLeeuw (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mohave tribe[edit]

Nominator's rationle: The Mohave people belong to two tribes, the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe and the Colorado River Indian Tribes. The current name implies that the Mohave people belong to a single tribe. Rename for accuracy. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I guess the proposed move is an improvement, although the fact that people belong to two different federally recognized tribes does not prevent them belonging to a single (non federally recognized) tribe. It is best to forestall readers drawing the inference, even if it is an invalid inference, hence deleting "peopletribe"† from the name is an improvement. OTOH article Mohave is currently a dab, so the shorter name may be ambiguous. I ask whether Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America has (or ought to have) any standard/guideline for category (and corresponding article) names —— e.g. capitalization; legal name vs common name; and group taxonomy labels (e.g. "people" vs "nation" vs "tribe" vs nothing; always vs disambiguation vs never). From browsing, I infer that "Category:Foo people" is the standard for subcats of Category:Native American people by tribe, so Category:Mohave people is about individuals (plural "people") whereas Mohave people is about the group (singular "people"). (The fact that Category:Mohave people is a subcat of Category:Native American people by tribe also seems to imply, contra the nomination, that that the Mohave people are in some sense a tribe.) jnestorius(talk) 23:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • † corrected myself: current name is "Mohave tribe", not "Mohave people" jnestorius(talk) 22:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless whether it is renamed or not, shouldn't we convert the category page to a disambiguation page just like in article space? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jnestorius Being a people is not the same as being a tribe. EG, the article for Cherokee refers to them as an Indigenous people belonging to three tribes; the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band, and the United Keetoowah Band. Mohave peoplehood doesn't imply being a single tribe. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the article for Cherokee refers to them as an Indigenous people belonging to three tribes No, it says "three Cherokee tribes are federally recognized", not the same thing. It also says 'By the 19th century, White American settlers had classified the Cherokee of the Southeast as one of the "Five Civilized Tribes"'. Five Civilized Tribes says "The term Five Civilized Tribes was applied ... to the five major Native American nations in the Southeast". Category:Cherokee people is a direct subcat of Category:Native American people by tribe. Article Tribe (Native American) says "In the United States, an American Indian tribe, Native American tribe, Alaska Native village, Indigenous tribe or Tribal nation may be any current or historical tribe, band, nation, or community of Native Americans in the United States. ... Many terms used to describe Indigenous peoples of the United States are contested but have legal definitions that are not always understood by the general public." We have a variety of words (tribe, band, nation, community, people, ...) used variously across different articles and categories, sometimes in accordance with a US federal legal definition, sometimes in a different sense used by ethnologists or historians; sometimes meaning an ethnic group, sometimes a subcomponent of an ethnic group split out by geography, administration, or something else. Are you implying that Wikipedia article/category titles should always used words in the sense given to them by U.S. federal law? That is certainly not true in general; it may be the consensus for WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America but I have not seen evidence of that yet. jnestorius(talk) 13:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for simiplicity's sake, although Category:Mojave would be even better. "tribe" lowercased isn't a problem, so not enthusiastic about massive renaming of all Foo tribe categories. Yuchitown (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments in general would be appreciated, but in particular input on whether this should be a {{category disambiguation}} and the precise new name – if it is to be renamed – whether the new name should be "Mohave" or "Mojave".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dutch cookies[edit]

Nominator's rationale: overcategorization, attempt to empty the categories cookie and Dutch cuisine. The Banner talk 07:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Film controversies in Spain[edit]

Nominator's rationale: All 4 items are articles about the films themselves. Follow-up to previous CfDs finding that the controversy should be the subject of a stand-alone article, and not just a (sub)section in the article about the film itself.
Precedents:
That also applies here. Should a sufficient number of stand-alone articles about film controversies in Spain be written, this category can be re-created without prejudice. NLeeuw (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose. I would note that there are 59 other sibling categories in Category:Film controversies by country, and all of them are populated almost entirely by "the films themselves" rather than "stand-alone" articles about the controversies as separate topics. So I'm unclear on why this would be different than all of the others — either they're all problematic for the same reasons and need to be collectively considered together, or this is as valid as the others, and there's no legitimate reason to single this one out for different treatment than the others.
    As well, most of the "precedents" listed above aren't particularly relevant here — Christmas, adventure and animation didn't get deleted on the grounds that it was fundamentally improper to categorize films as "controversial", they got deleted on the grounds that the intersection of controversy with genre wasn't defining. So I'm not at all wedded to the need for this, but those categories have nothing to do with it because they're not the same issue in the slightest. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair points. In my defence, I didn't intend to single out Spain and spare all other countries in the world; I was just busy improving the Category:Culture of Spain tree, as you can see.
    Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, feel free to follow-up nominate all other categories populated only by articles about the films and not stand-alone articles on the controversies they created. I did not intend setting a higher standard for Spain; if we conclude this category is improper, or at least improperly populated at the moment, that should evidently apply to all children of Category:Film controversies by country. NLeeuw (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I understand that we cannot single out one country, I would encourage a broader nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Food gods[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT PepperBeast (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging Category:Harvest deities to Category:Agricultural deities, but keep Category:Food deities instead of merging it, I think the Food gods/goddesses are related but not the exact same thing as Agricultural gods/goddesses. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, I agree with you, but all the deities I checked that are currently categorized as food gods/goddesses/deities are actually harvest/agriculture gods. PepperBeast (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge for Food deities agree with @AHI-3000, The Hindu goddess Annapurna (goddess) is the goddess of food, but is unrelated to Agriculture. Phosop is the goddess of rice, not agriculture in general. Mellona is the goddess of apples. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per this request at my talk page (previously closed as "merge").
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merging food god(esse)s/deities. Not all food is derived from agriculture, which is why we have Category:Hunting deities -- there are other ways to get food. Hunter-gatherers don't do agriculture. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:USA for Africa songs[edit]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See comment by Pppery.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While not a guideline, there is consensus per WP:ALBUMSTYLE "that a category for an artist's albums should be created even if they have only released one album (irrespective of whether they are likely to release more in the future)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk • contribs) 18:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian military personnel from Kelowna[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by location. While a few Canadian cities do have "Military personnel from City" categories (but not "Canadian military personnel from City"), there's no comprehensive scheme in place of doing this across the board for all cities — they otherwise exist only for the major megacities with populations of half a million or more, whose base "People from City" categories were overpopulated into the hundreds or thousands and needed diffusion for size control, and not for every city across the board. But with just 67 articles in Category:Canadian military personnel from British Columbia and just six in Category:People from Kelowna, neither of the parent categories are large enough to need this for diffusability. There's no particularly unique relationship between military service and being from Kelowna per se, so this isn't needed for just three people if other Canadian cities in Kelowna's weight class (Lethbridge, Regina, Saskatoon, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Gatineau, Sherbrooke, Moncton, etc.) don't have the same. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree Kelowna is the third largest locality in BC. Uncontroversial categories exist for the two largest localities (Vancouver and Victoria). It already has three entries which is often considered the criterion for a category, and is likely to gain more in the future as more biographies are created. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the standard minimum size for a category is normally five, not three, and even then size alone doesn't automatically trump other considerations. A category that is failing or violating other rules isn't exempted from those other rules just because you can get its size to five per se.
Secondly, "(Canadian) military personnel" categories don't exist for either Vancouver or Victoria at all yet, so I don't know what you even think you're talking about with that argument.
Thirdly, it's not "ordinal size rank within province" that determines whether such a category is warranted in this tree, but "is the base people-from category large enough to need diffusion or not" — which with just six people in it now and only nine even if these get upmerged to it (well, actually eight, because one of these three people is already in a different occupational subcategory as it is), Kelowna's is not. At present, these categories exist only for big cities where an undifferentiated "People from" category without occupational subcategories would be populated past the 500-article or 1,000-article marks, which is not where Kelowna is sitting, and they do not automatically exist as a matter of course for every small or medium city that had one, two or three military people come from there.
My mistake on thinking there was a category for military personnel from Victoria and Vancouver. It is actually Category:Writers from British Columbia that includes those two cities, and now (since I created it) Kelowna. Which is a good reason to think maybe they should all be in a category, rather than ruling out Kelowna because the other two haven't been created yet.
I could add Trevor Cadieu from Vernon, which is on the same lake as Kelowna and with city limits separated by ~10 km, possibly considered a suburb. Also since this nom, I discovered that George Randolph Pearkes served with the BC Dragoons which is a Kelowna reserve unit (Okanagan Military Museum). I don't want to change the categories of either bio right now in case this is an error and would be perceived as gaming this nom. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found one more notable definitely described as "from Kelowna" by Okanagan Military Museum: Rodney Frederick Leopold Keller. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The smallest other city with a sibling category is both (a) four times Kelowna's size, and (b) about 80 years older than Kelowna, both adding up to the fact it has several hundred more articles in its "People from" tree than Kelowna does, and thus needs to be diffused more than Kelowna's does. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT-related music[edit]

Nominator's rationale: An odd entry in Category:LGBT arts, because of the "-related" adjective not shared by any parent category (but shared by some subcategories that may need to be renamed as well). Sister categories at that level (in LGBT arts) are just LGBT dance, LGBT literature, LGBT arts organizations, LGBT theatre, and LGBT art‎. No "-related" anywhere there. Another option would be to rename everything to the form of 'X about Y", although I am not sure if "about LGBT" sounds best (ex. "Music about LGBT"?). For now, removing "-related" from that tree might be easiest in terms of standardization. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I guess it is called "-related" because it also contains LGBT musicians and LGBT musical groups subcategories with artists who do not all create LGBT content. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would note that the category is named the way it is because CFD previously renamed it from the proposed new name to the existing one on the grounds that the music itself doesn't have its own innate sexual orientation, but is merely contextually related to the sexual orientations of people. I would further note things like Category:LGBT-related films, Category:LGBT-related television shows and Category:LGBT-related books, which are also categorized as "LGBT-related", and not just as "LGBT", for the same reason, which means there's a mixture of "LGBT" vs. "LGBT-related" among its siblings rather than this being a one-off outlier. It's a complicated question, for sure, but the reason it's named this way is because of a prior CFD discussion on it, so it's not nearly as clearcut as the nominator makes it out to be. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak keep based on the names of the sibling categories that Bearcat mentions. Mason (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs against capitalism[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Generally, our songs by topic categories are 'about' not 'against'. Ex. Category:Songs about poverty. This is also subcat to Category:Songs about consumerism, not Category:Songs against consumerism... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean to delete, it is quite a stretch to say that these songs are about capitalism. I found several that are just critical of modern society in general, some others about the labour movement. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps could be saved after pruning, if anyone can indeed show a song about capitalism. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I can understand why one ould argue that should be deleted because of the nebulous nature, but it is pretty clear that many of these songs have lyrics that are anti-capitalist. Velociraptor888 (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is not clear at all. It relies very much on subjective judgement. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition to deletion or, alternatively, renaming for the family patriarch and Angolan president José Eduardo dos Santos category:José Eduardo dos Santos. Do you have a preference Marcocapelle?--User:Namiba 18:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri in literature & education[edit]

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]
  • Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Lists already exist, starting with List of Padma Shri award recipients (1954–1959). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this awards are defining characteristic of recipients and they are frequently labelled as Padma Awardee in references. Another reason is lists of Padma awardees are not by their fields but by year. Each list contains all awardee of all field in a year. So field-wise categories help to find awardees in perticular field too like above literature and education.-Nizil (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Burials in Quito[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, we normally categorize burials only by place of burial e.g. by cemetery, not by geographic places. A geographic place is either where the person lived, in that case they should just be in a "Peoples from" category. Or else it is a random place, e.g. the place of the hospital where they died, which is not defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Atari 8-bit family games[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Article has recently gone through a name change to Atari 8-bit computers. This category should reflect that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--Krótki (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Screwball pitchers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: In baseball, unlike knuckleball pitchers who are utterly unique and stand apart from all other pitchers, its actually hard to tell screwball pitchers apart from someone throwing a circle changeup so people who never threw one are in here. And while throwing a real screwball is uncommon, they aren't so rare as to warrant a category of their own - certainly not as rare as knuckleball pitchers. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unlike knuckleball pitchers, throwing a screwball is not a defining characteristic. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As category creator, no objection to this discussion. It was a BOLD idea on a whim. --Jprg1966 (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:MIT Engineers seasons[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only one subcategory. Let'srun (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Feminist historians[edit]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flemish sinologists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defning intersection between ethnicity (flemish) and subspecialization. Single merge because the only person in the category is already in the French sinologists category. Mason (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Algerian Berber feminists[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between ethnicity, political orientation, and nationality. If not merged, rename to Berber Algerian feminists. to match parent Berber Algerians Mason (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Czech-Polish translators[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Mason (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection, we don't categorize by the two languages translators know. We categorize by their nationality Mason (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2024 (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.

Category:Russian meat dishes[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer. Upmerge Russian chicken dishes to Russian cuisine. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Why is it redundant? It includes 5 articles and clearly has a scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because those article weren't in there when I nominated it, just the subcategory. But now that they are, my position has changed. Withdrawn. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older discussions[edit]

The above are up to 7 days old. For a list of discussions more than seven days old, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All old discussions.

  1. ^ "Intersex inclusion in the 2014 Sydney Mardi Gras Parade". Organisation Intersex International Australia. 3 March 2014. Archived from the original on 2023-04-11.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions&oldid=1202523150"