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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 16:21, 2 January 2024

< December 20

December 22 >

December 21

Category:Recurring sporting events established in 1862

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 29#Category:Recurring sporting events established in 1862

Category:1943 in multi-sport events

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) Qwerfjkl talk 12:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:1943 in multi-sport events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 page in this category. Let'srun (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural oppose, there is no point in randomly picking one year in the middle of the tree of Category:Multi-sport events by year. I would be open to a batch nomination of all years until 1950. Also it should be merging to decade categories instead of deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oppose That is not a reason to delete a category. Dimadick (talk) 01:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1942 in multi-sport events

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) Qwerfjkl talk 12:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:1942 in multi-sport events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 page in this category. Let'srun (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural oppose, there is no point in randomly picking one year in the middle of the tree of Category:Multi-sport events by year. I would be open to a batch nomination of all years until 1950. Also it should be merging to decade categories instead of deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Marco. Also deleting doesn't help, they should be merged. Mason (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oppose That is not a reason to delete a category. Dimadick (talk) 01:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1915 in multi-sport events

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) Qwerfjkl talk 12:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:1915 in multi-sport events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 page in this category. Let'srun (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural oppose, there is no point in randomly picking one year in the middle of the tree of Category:Multi-sport events by year. I would be open to a batch nomination of all years until 1950. Also it should be merging to decade categories instead of deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oppose That is not a reason to delete a category. Dimadick (talk) 01:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1917 in multi-sport events

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) Qwerfjkl talk 12:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:1917 in multi-sport events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 category Let'srun (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all: While only containing one article (for years 1915, 1917, 1942 & 1943) they are part of a category series, Years in multi-sport events, and hence should be kept; along with "1904 in multi-sport events" which also has only one article (about the Olympic Games). Hugo999 (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural oppose, there is no point in randomly picking one year in the middle of the tree of Category:Multi-sport events by year. I would be open to a batch nomination of all years until 1950. Also it should be merging to decade categories instead of deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose for this and other years (noms above). At worst these should be merged to the decade category. These were events during World Wars, when most people were distracted by war and international sporting events were hard to stage. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That is not a reason to delete a category. Dimadick (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: Oppose partial upmerge to decades; This would add 24 or so categories by decade to replace 3 or 4 categories by yer with only one article in them; and would complicate navigation with needing to decide whether each articlel should be categorised by year or decade. Hugo999 (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional rope fighters

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 29#Category:Fictional rope fighters

Category:Fictional pankration practitioners

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 18:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Fictional pankration practitioners to Category:Fictional sport wrestlers

Nominator's rationale: Obscure and unnecessary category made by a blocked user. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Immigrants to British North America

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) Qwerfjkl talk 18:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Immigrants to British North America to Category:Immigrants to former British colonies and protectorates in the Americas
Propose merging Category:British emigrants to British North America to Category:British emigrants to the British Empire
Propose merging Category:English emigrants to British North America to Category:English emigrants
Propose merging Category:American emigrants to British North America to Category:American emigrants to the British Empire

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

Oppose, this can't be discussed on its own, it would require discussion of the root Category:British North America too. No objection to diffusion to more specific colonies though. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oppose per Marcocapelle. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnis Scientia@Marcocapelle, How do you feel about containerizing the category. My concern is that pages are being placed by JPL in the category at the expense of more specific intersections. I'm fine with keeping it as long as its containerized. Mason (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have no objection to diffusion to more specific colonies. I am not sure though if we can fully diffuse, let's just wait and see. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mason, it would be complicated to divide them, now that I think about it. British North America was what the collection of colonies were referred to post-American Revolutionary Wars so I would say keep the categories as are. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True, but people weren't defined as being British North American, they were defined by a specific colony. Mason (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison, that is true. But I see the Category:Immigrants to British North America as the same as I see Category:Immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies. That is they were both collections of colonies and people did immigrate to those places. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage you to look at how Category:Immigrants to British North America is being used at the moment. Mason (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison, fair enough. But it seems to be part of a bigger problem with Category:People of British North America and Category:British North America. So I think that needs to be addressed first before we can be able to address this one. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Object to this nom. It is at its root mixing two different things: "pre-confederation Canada (1760-1860s)" and "Thirteen colonies" (1620-1776); these need to be split before this nom can be closed in any way. Much of the settlement of Upper Canada was by United Empire Loyalists (aka American Tories) who opposed US independence and lost their homes as a result: the relevant category currently has one article, but need populating. Currently the English emigrants category includes people going to Thirteen Colonies; and they need to be purged to the appropriate colony or one for Thirteen Colonies generally. The rump British north America should go into pre-confederation Canada categories. Once emptied the British North America categories should either become dab-categories (not to be used) or containers. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:NoCopyrightSounds artists

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) Qwerfjkl talk 18:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:NoCopyrightSounds artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category has become infected with redirects of non-notable music artists to the record label or other locations. Even with the removal of the redirects from the category, the articles that remain are not enough to hold this category together. Jalen Folf (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have removed all of the redirects, leaving 8 articles. That's enough for a general-purpose category. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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:Organizations associated with cervical cancer

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 18:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Organizations associated with cervical cancer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Delete per nom. There is no need to merge, the article is already in Category:Cancer organisations based in Australia. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OCASSOC. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no hope of categorizing pages to this category, per above. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 14:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

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: merge to Category:21st-century American women politicians. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 18:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:21st-century women politicians from insular areas of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer. First I've ever seen a Puerto Rico category not just be a direct subcat of a US cat. Not sure I see a point where this layer would ever be useful in any category given how few inhabited territories the US holds. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:21st-century American women politicians, but not per the original rationale. There is plenty of content at Category:People by insular area of the United States and Category:American people by state or territory, so in principle insular area categories are useful. In the present case, there is presently little interest of having this layer as there isn't any other sibling for any state or territory. Place Clichy (talk) 12:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, a merge to Category:21st-century American women politicians would not be better because Puerto Ricans aren't Americans. That's why we have categories such as, Category:Members of the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico under Category:Members of legislatures of insular areas of the United States, and not under Category:Legislators in the United States. Mercy11 (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's wrong. Deleting without merging to the American parent would remove this category from Category:21st-century women politicians with no reason. The good and usual practice for categories for Puerto Rico and other People from dependent territories with comparable status is to parent them to a state and territory or a insular areas category. In case there is not enough content for one (as is the case here as there isn't any sibling for any state), then it is perfectly fine to use the American parent, in which the category would be anyway even through an intermediate layer. There is a defining link between Puerto Rico and the U.S. Place Clichy (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My position is that Category:21st-century women politicians from insular areas of the United States is fine as is; that is, it deserves neither a delete nor a merge.

I was addressing the underlined part of your comment where you stated "The good and usual practice for categories for Puerto Rico and other People from dependent territories with comparable status is to parent them to a state and territory or a insular areas category". That is, my position is that parenting to the "by insular area of the United States" tree is the correct way to parent US territories, and not parenting to the categories using the format "by state of territory of the United States" (which you seem to be partly proposing). My reasoning is based on the fact that insular areas are separate areas from the "US proper" areas (the States); thus parenting Category:21st-century women politicians from insular areas of the United States directly under the US category is wrong because it implies these women are American women, when they are not: they may be American citizens, but the category names doesn't use the word "citizens" at all, so it's ambiguos both ways (1) to delete it and place it as a direct subcat of a US cat (as the nominator is proposing), and is also ambiguos to (2) merge it into a cat of the format Category:21st-century American women politicians by state or territory because that would still not remove the ambiguity that women in the territories aren't Americans. (See here for a proposal to rename a "by state" category into a "by state or territory" category.) This would create "competing" tree category named "Foo by state or territory" when there already exist the properly named tree categories of "Foo by state of the United States" and "Foo by insular area of the United States" to take care of both, the US states and the US territories (aka, US insualr areas). Mercy11 (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there isn't any other Category:21st-century people from insular areas of the United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: don't you think a merge to Category:21st-century American women politicians would be better than deletion? Place Clichy (talk) 12:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not have an answer to that question. I.e. I would not object to that if other editors agree that this would be a better solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would just be reverting to the situation prior, hence I don't think it is contentious. @QuietHere: I could have notified you as well with the same question. Place Clichy (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to, nor preference towards, either solution. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there aren't any other Category:21st-century people from insular areas of the United States, that simply means that they haven't been created, not that they shouldn't be created. Categories for the US states are more matured than those for the insular areas such as Puerto Rico; so, more time is needed to create the categories for the insular areas.Mercy11 (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say delete per nom. The category is already part of Category:21st-century politicians from insular areas of the United States. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There is nothing redundant about this layer. There are numerous instances of trees with Puerto Rico categories (and the other insular area categories for that matter, such as USVI, and American Samoa) that are not a direct subcat under a US cat. Some are:

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

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything related to insular areas of the United States, so that categories appear under states and territories of US (which should also include DC). Yes they are territories, not states, but separating off non-state areas of US is thoroughly confusing to me in Britain, as they are all part of the lands of USA. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This category isn't about "lands" belonging to the US, but about people in those lands, and those people are culturally different (which explains why they have their own Miss Universe winners and their own Olympic teams, etc., separate from the US). Most importantly here, they have their own political parties and political structures, separate from the US. The statement "they are all PART of the lands of USA" is not factual, it is also incorrect, for those lands belong to the US but are not part of the US, only the 50 states and DC are part of the US, which is why those lands are not called "territories of the US", but are instead called --by the US Congress and the SCOTUS, btw-- "UNincorporated territories". Mercy11 (talk) 07:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Place Clichy and Peterkingiron. Puerto Ricans are American citizens. This precedent has been set many times before and Mercy11 is the only one raising a fuss. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cajun writers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 29#Category:Cajun writers

Category:Zookeepers from Oklahoma

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: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 19:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Zookeepers from Oklahoma to Category:American zookeepers, Category:People from Oklahoma

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

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, the number of articles in Category:American zookeepers does not justify a split by state (yet). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Mason (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Let'srun (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We don't need to merge to Category:People from Oklahoma because both pages point to an article that is in Category:People from Wynnewood, Oklahoma. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:2021 in British technology

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: merge/delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 19:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:2021 in British technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:2021 in technology
Propose deleting Category:Technology by country by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Merge for now, without objection to recreate the category when it can be sufficiently populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Technology is often not specific to one country. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:African-American players of American football

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 29#Category:African-American players of American football

Template:Nigeria-documentary-film-stub

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: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 21:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Nigeria-documentary-film-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to {{Nigeria-film-stub}} and {{Documentary-film-stub}}

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

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional eyepatch wearers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 29#Category:Fictional eyepatch wearers

Category:Fictional disabled characters in soap operas

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 29#Category:Fictional disabled characters in soap operas

Category:Preserved beam engines

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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 21:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging:

Category:Preserved beam engines to Category:Preserved stationary steam engines

Nominator's rationale: Raising on behalf of Globbet who wasn't sure about starting this discussion themselves. Please reply to them, not me. "The rationale is that the present subdivision is unnecessary and unhelpful. By the nature of the subject, the overall size of the category can never grow much larger." - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 14:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose In what way is this 'unhelpful'? Why is 'can never grow much larger' relevant? Are we to delete Category:Continents too?

Category:Preserved stationary steam engines is a tiny fraction of what it could be, potentially huge, and I fail to see why any subcateorization of it is now a problem? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potential size: the number of notable preserved stationary steam engines is not so big. Where are all these surviving but derelict beam engines?

Unhelpful:

(a) Unnecesarily small subcats make an overview more difficult and make the user do unnecessary work. They are ergonomically suboptimal. If you want to use subcats to distingush types, then a list might be a better approach.

(b) Having a subcat for one particular configuration is not logical (except perhaps on the grounds of population size). Why not have subcats for other equally valid and distinctive configurations such as horizontal, vertical, and inverted vertical? Well, because they would be too small to be anything other than a navigational nuisance.

Comparison: I don't think Continents is a subcat, and I could offer a reductio ad absurdum too, but won't bother. Globbet (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure what was in this category when it was originally nominated but it is now well populated. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- The scope of the two is in practice probably much the same. I do not think that there are a great many more. Most of these are in UK. Possibly sibling categories may be needed one day, or we might one day want to split out horizontal engines. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Autosomal monosomies and deletions

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 29#Category:Autosomal monosomies and deletions

Category:County commissioners in Maryland

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 29#Category:County commissioners in Maryland

Category:Serb diaspora sportspeople

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: manual merge. to Category:Serbian emigrants (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 14:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Serb diaspora sportspeople to Category:Sportspeople of Serbian descent

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

Merge to Category:Serbian emigrants per actual content. These aren't people whose parents or grandparents emigrated. They emigrated themselves. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and purge per above. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

@LaundryPizza03 and Smasongarrison: do you specifically disagree with "emigrants" and if so why? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That some people might not be emigrants. Compare Category:Sportspeople of Japanese descent, which includes both Japanese expatriates and ethnic Japanese. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LP makes a good point, but I'm fine with either. Mason (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Then Category:Sportspeople of Japanese descent might be manually merged (excluding people whose parents or grandparents emigrated). But that is not the category that is currently nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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:Possible future wars

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 14:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Possible future wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete for the same reason as the former Category:Hypothetical events - Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL, and calling these wars "possible things that will happen in the future" is speculating in a manner that is against Wikipedia policy, even if you yourself may think they will. Policy says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." These wars are far from certain, and will continue to be unless it actually breaks out. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's no telling how World War III may even begin. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~, while the topic is speculative, the categorization of the articles is correct, maybe with the exception of Second Cold War. If the category is not kept, merge to Category:Futures studies rather than plainly delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@Zxcvbnm, LaundryPizza03, and Fayenatic london: don't you agree that, if the category is not kept, it should be merged to Category:Futures studies? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they are already in subcategories of that category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Only World War III is already in Category:Doomsday scenarios. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Chinese unification is under Proposals which is under Future. That seems sufficient. – Fayenatic London 11:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The articles are not mere speculations. WP:CRYSTALBALL is about our own predictions, not those of the sources. Dimadick (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll strike my oppose. As other editors have pointed out further above, it is all under Category:Future anyway. Nom's WP:CRYSTALBALL rationale was confusing though. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Immigrants to British Hong Kong

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: no consensus on the original proposal. Rename Category:British emigrants to British Hong Kong to Category:British people in colonial Hong Kong.

No consensus Category:Immigrants to British Hong Kong
No consensus Category:Chinese emigrants to British Hong Kong
No consensus Category:Canadian emigrants to British Hong Kong
Rename Category:British emigrants to British Hong Kong to Category:British people in colonial Hong Kong

for the original proposal. Rename Category:British emigrants to British Hong Kong to Category:British people in colonial Hong Kong. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 14:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Immigrants to British Hong Kong to Category:Immigrants to Hong Kong
Propose merging Category:Chinese emigrants to British Hong Kong to Category:Chinese emigrants to Hong Kong
Propose merging Category:Canadian emigrants to British Hong Kong to Category:Canadian emigrants to Hong Kong
Propose merging Category:British emigrants to British Hong Kong to Category:British emigrants to Hong Kong

Nominator's rationale:Overlapping category where the intersection isn't defining, there's no need to split category by which nation was in control of hong kong Mason (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the concept of migrants is only meaningful if there is a Hong Kong country border to cross, which is currently no longer the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So are you arguing for a downmerge or a deletion instead then? I'm confused. Mason (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I am arguing to keep these and would suggest nominating the parent categories for renaming or deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I think if you want to do that, we'd need to rename a lot of categories. Category:Hong Kong people by century Mason (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

- Marcocapelle, by your logic, Category:Chinese emigrants to Hong Kong should contain only people who moved there before the 1997 handover, and Category:British emigrants to Hong Kong only those who did after (or before the Opium War), is that correct? This seems potentially confusing to me, and in any case, there is still a border for Mainland residents crossing into Hong Kong, and a People's Republic of China Permit for Proceeding to Hong Kong and Macao is required to settle there. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, and it would make sense to have Category:British emigrants to Hong Kong renamed to Category:British people in colonial Hong Kong in parallel to Category:British people in colonial India. I do not think it is potentially confusing, Chinese people who settled after 1997 are still Chinese people. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you mean renaming Category:British emigrants to British Hong Kong to Category:British people in colonial Hong Kong? I would support that. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that is what I meant. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Festivals in Chile by year

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: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:2006 festivals in Chile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:2006 in Chile, and Category:2006 festivals in South America
Propose merging Category:2009 festivals in Chile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:2009 in Chile, and Category:2009 festivals in South America
Propose merging Category:2010 festivals in Chile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:2010 in Chile, and ~~Category:2006 festivals in South America~~ Category:2010 festivals in South America
Propose merging Category:2011 festivals in Chile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:2011 in Chile, and ~~Category:2010 festivals in South America~~ Category:2011 festivals in South America
Propose merging Category:2013 festivals in Chile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:2013 in Chile, and Category:2013 festivals in South America
Propose merging Category:2015 festivals in Chile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:2015 in Chile, and Category:2015 festivals in South America
Propose merging Category:2016 festivals in Chile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:2016 in Chile, and Category:2016 festivals in South America
Propose merging Category:2017 festivals in Chile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:2017 in Chile, and Category:2017 festivals in South America
Propose deleting Category:Festivals in Chile by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Festivals in Colombia by year

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: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:2008 festivals in Colombia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:2008 in Colombia, and Category:2008 festivals in South America
Propose deleting Category:Festivals in Colombia by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Jewish sportspeople

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: merge to Category:Jewish sportspeople. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 14:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose keeping Category:Jewish ice hockey players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I'm in favor of keeping this category as part of Category:Jewish sportspeople. For full disclosure, I created it today, unaware that it had been deleted per recent discussion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

copy of speedy discussion

DELETE Category:Jewish ice hockey players per WP:G4 – Recreation of a category deleted last month after a community decision, with the addition of an American child: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 24#Category:Jewish chess players. There's no such thing as Jewish ice hockey. Place Clichy (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE Category:Jewish American ice hockey players

Oppose Hi @Place Clichy, I created the category. Let me explain my reasoning. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Place Clichy, of course there isn't such a thing as Jewish ice hockey but Jewish people do play ice hockey and hence are Jewish sportspeople. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Place Clichy, pinging you.

I have NOW read the previous discussion which was split between "keep" and "delete". As I also note, the person who started that Cfd did so under the guise that it was about religion, not ethnicity. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in the speedy discussion, OF COURSE there isn't such a thing as Jewish ice hockey. But Jewish ice hockey players exist and they would be in Category:Jewish sportspeople.

I'm also in favor of keeping Category:Jewish American ice hockey players because its part of Category:Jewish American sportspeople and many American sportspeople are categorized by ethnicity AND sports. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, @Smasongarrison.

Given this is part of a larger discussion: sportspeople include athletes of different sports, broadcasters, executives, etc. There HAS to be further categorization in this regard. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, trivial intersection between ethnicity and occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should be merge to Category:Jewish sportspeople. As long as that category exists, it is still an appropriate merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It probably helps with diffusion to break it up by sport. Mason (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, then what's the point of having Category:Jewish sportspeople if you can't divide by sports? As @Smasongarrison points out (and you actually agreed with this on a seperate discussion) it helps with diffusion and navigation. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that you can navigate to lots of other sporters who are in that category because of their Jewishness. (Whether you'd actually find some useful information about "Jewish sports" in these articles is another question.) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, I thought the point WAS to help with and make navigation easier (genuinely asking, not trying to snarky).

And if I am allowed to add something personal, as someone interested in sports and its history, I have found that people within the Jewish community DO seek out Jewish athletes simply because they are Jewish, out of pride. So that is also part of why I would like to keep it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to add that if NOT kept, the categories should be UPMERGED to their respective parent categories rather than deleted.

Personally, I don't like the argument that Place Clichy used. I'm sure it was not their intent but it just seemed rather crass to me given that Category:Jewish sportspeople is pretty self-explanatory. "Jewish sports" is obviously not a thing but Jewishness IS a distinct identity and Jewish sportspeople exist. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point of WP:EGRS is exactly to prevent these trivial intersections of two topics that each have a justifiable category tree of their own. And Wikipedia is not here to serve national or ethnic pride, there are other websites for that. See also WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The whole point of categories is that you can easily find more information about a broader topic, not to create lists. I do agree with merging instead of deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G4 and WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 24 § Category:Jewish chess players. This category was deleted on 4 November of this year. It defeats the purpose of having deletion discussions if, right after they are closed, an editor creates the category again and discusses its merits again at CfD, in hope of a different result. Place Clichy (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy, that would not apply to Category:Jewish American ice hockey players because that is part of Category:Jewish American sportspeople and wasn't discussed in any Cfd as far as I am aware. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is partly why I brought it to Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And as I explained on my talk page to you and as I began here: I was not aware of the previous discussion. @Place Clichy, if you wish, please go ahead and delete those categories per WP:G4. Next time, I will be more careful. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy, I've added "delete by author" tag onto the pages you have mentioned but not to the ones on Cfd (@Marcocapelle knows about the discussion of categorization in Category:Jewish sportspeople by gender over here; whoever added Category:Jewish martial artists forgot to add the two gender categories which got left behind. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The relationship with parent Category:Jewish sportspeople was in fact discussed during the deletion discussion. Suggesting that some things could have been said differently at the time of the discussion so it's OK to create the category kinda defeats the purpose of WP:G4 and holding CfD discussions at all. That discussion was originally for mere deletion rather than upmerge to Category:Jewish sportspeople, and that specific point was not challenged.

If I have to guess an interpretation of why deletion was preferred to upmerge, I would say that the main rationale was that the link between these specific sports and being Jewish was deemed to be trivial, and therefore the link between being sportspeople and being Jewish can't be considered defining for these specific individuals. Note that WP:DEFINE (which is kinda the essential principle of all the categorization guidelines) affects whether an article has its place in a given category, rather than being about the category. A category can be a defining characteristic for some articles but not others, even though they seem prima facie to check the description. That's an ambiguity I frequently see in category discussions. @Marcocapelle: that's also an answer to your argument above that As long as that category exists, it is still an appropriate merge target. Place Clichy (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy, very well. You can deal with the rest as you want BUT Category:Jewish American ice hockey players does not fall under WP:G4 as it was never discussed in Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:G4 applies. It says: "This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies." As the November 2023 discussion established that the relationship between being Jewish and ice hockey is trivial, the link between being Jewish, American and ice hockey is equally trivial per the same expressed consensus. They are sufficiently identical copies in substance. You need a reversal of consensus to prove otherwise, or at the very least provide at least one single argument why American Jews would be something special in ice hockey that non-American Jews are not. Place Clichy (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy, I will manually merge it with Category:Jewish American sportspeople and delete it as the author. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note to who closes this: as nominator, I'm fine with this nomination being closed as delete per Place Clichy's reasoning. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Anti-Israeli sentiment

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 30#Category:Anti-Israeli sentiment

Category:Transport disasters by decade

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: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose ~~splitting~~ merging Category:Transport disasters by decade to Category:Transport disasters and Category:Man-made disasters by decade

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

Merge to Category:Man-made disasters by decade only. I have already parented the subcategory into the tree of Category:Transport disasters anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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:Festival in Gilgit baltistan

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: merge to Category:Culture of Gilgit-Baltistan. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 14:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Festival in Gilgit baltistan to Category:Festivals in Gilgit-Baltistan

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

Merge for now to Category:Culture of Gilgit-Baltistan, contains only one article. If kept, rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Marcocapelle. The only member is already in a subcategory of Category:Festivals in Pakistan. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Expatriates in British North America

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 30#Category:Expatriates in British North America

Category:Fictional water monsters

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: no consensus to overturn the previous close. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 15:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Fictional water monsters to Category:Fictional sea monsters

Nominator's rationale: Only non-diffused member, the Deep One, also lives in the sea. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Downmerge per nom. Note that a downmerge must be done manually, the parent categories need to be moved. Alternatively upmerge to the parent categories, this has the same effect and can be automated. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This one I passed over because, well, there is a legit category called Category:Water monsters that is about non-sea monsters. However, I would not be averse to merging Category:Water monsters to Category:Mythological aquatic creatures, and then Category:Fictional water monsters to Category:Fictional aquatic creatures. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged Category:Water monsters too, although I am not sure yet of User:Zxcvbnm's counter proposal. Not every water monsters is a mythological creature, right? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: I vote to merge any NON-mythological yet still folkloric water monster to Category:Aquatic cryptids (currently just a redirect). That should solve the issues with miscategorization. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, it will require a bit of manual work, but it will solve all issues as mentioned by nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Meanwhile I have moved a few articles to Category:Mythological aquatic creatures if they properly belong there. For the remainder that used to be in Category:Water monsters and now in Category:Aquatic cryptids I am not so sure anymore. Earlier I was rather focused on the mythology-focused part of the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I need to highlight that the word cryptid (from the pseudoscience cryptozoology) is a WP:FRINGE word that implies that a creature in fact exists and is simply waiting to be found. Mythological may not be appropriate (such creatures are found in other genres of folklore beyond myth, like legend and folktale) but monster is almost always appropriate for these entities. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the definition of cryptid is "an animal (such as Sasquatch or the Loch Ness Monster) that has been claimed to exist". It does not imply the creature does in fact exist, only that at some point someone made the claim it did. I am simply not seeing any credence to this argument that using the word apparently promotes fringe beliefs and it is a word included in major dictionaries across the board. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for a hypothetical article, a fictional lake monster, akin to Ogopogo, Champy, Nessie, would that be a fictional sea monster? (there are many mythological river and lake monsters, and lots of fiction with monstrous beasts in such locations, such as the films Lake Placid or Anaconda) -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 05:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Discrimination in the Arab world

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: merge all , but purge countries that are not in the Middle East proper. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Discrimination in the Arab world to Category:Discrimination in the Middle East
- Propose merging Category:Sexism in the Arab world to Category:Sexism in the Middle East (added 12 December)
- Propose merging Category:Racism in the Arab world to Category:Racism in the Middle East
- Propose merging Category:Antisemitism in the Arab world to Category:Antisemitism in the Middle East

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

Manually merge, largely overlapping (but Libya is usually considered not to belong to the Middle East). Two subcategories may be nominated as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose consideration of this category on its own; no objection to a wider discussion along with subcats Sexism in the Arab world, Antisemitism in the Arab world, Racism in the Arab world. See previous discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_1#Category:Sexism_in_the_Arab_world. – Fayenatic London 22:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oppose The idea that the Middle East and the Arab world are synonymous is uninformed. Turkey, Iran, and Israel are all countries in the Middle East that are not majority Arab. Furthermore, the Arab countries of the Maghreb (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya) are not Middle Eastern. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not synonymous but largely overlapping. I agree that Libya belongs to Africa rather than to the Middle East but that can be solved separately. And the proposal does not touch upon Turkey, Iran or Israël. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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:Danish sportspeople by century

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) Qwerfjkl talk 15:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Danish sportspeople by century to Category:Danish sportspeople

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now, as there's only one category in here, which is not helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yjere are mow three categories in there (same as for other countries).Ramblersen2 (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: in your haste to create the new categories @Ramblersen2, you made several red-linked categories . Please clean up the new categories. Mason (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole tree, container categories just split by gender have no added value. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Moroccan people of Jewish descent

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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Moroccan people of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: unnecessary layer, Category:Moroccan Jews is enough. Yorkporter (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (normally I would have said upmerge but seems not needed here). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has two sub-categories and could also be useful for non-Jewish Moroccans of Jewish descent. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SubCategory:Moroccan people of Spanish-Jewish descent fits wholly within the other subCategory:Moroccan Jews. A more appropriate name for the former would be Moroccan Jews of Spanish descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Not every person of Jewish descent is a Jew. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Completely agree. But these articles are about Jews. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete the subcategory has been moved so it is moot. (t · c) buidhe 07:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lists of unrealized projects by artist

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 30#Category:Lists of unrealized projects by artist

Category:Spanish people of the colonial Philippines

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: rename to Category:Spanish people in the colonial Philippines. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Spanish people of the colonial Philippines to Category:Spanish expatriates in the Philippines and Category:People from the Spanish colonial Philippines

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

Keep and populate, it is a proper analogy of Category:British people in British Malaya and Category:British people in colonial India. Many articles in Category:People from the Spanish colonial Philippines may be moved to here. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, I think we should rename it "Spanish people in the colonial Philippines" to make that analogy clearer Mason (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Mason is right about "in" instead of "of". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional reptilians

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 30#Category:Fictional reptilians

Category:Given names inspired by popular culture

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 30#Category:Given names inspired by popular culture

Category:Businesspeople from the Colony of Queensland

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: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge Category:Businesspeople from the Colony of Queensland to Category:Businesspeople from Queensland and Category:Colony of Queensland people and Category:19th-century Australian businesspeople
Propose merge Category:Businesspeople from the Colony of South Australia to Category:19th-century Australian businesspeople and Category:Colony of South Australia people

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

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

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

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 tennis people by state

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: merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:American tennis people by state to Category:American tennis players by state.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Alabama to Category:Tennis players from Alabama.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Arizona to Category:Tennis players from Arizona.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from California to Category:Tennis players from California.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Colorado to Category:Tennis players from Colorado.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Connecticut to Category:Tennis players from Connecticut.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Delaware to Category:Tennis players from Delaware.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Florida to Category:Tennis players from Florida.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Georgia (U.S. state) to Category:Tennis players from Georgia (U.S. state).
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Hawaii to Category:Tennis players from Hawaii.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Idaho to Category:Tennis players from Idaho.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Illinois to Category:Tennis players from Illinois.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Indiana to Category:Tennis players from Indiana.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Iowa to Category:Tennis players from Iowa.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Kansas to Category:Tennis players from Kansas.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Kentucky to Category:Tennis players from Kentucky.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Louisiana to Category:Tennis players from Louisiana.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Maryland to Category:Tennis players from Maryland.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Massachusetts to Category:Tennis players from Massachusetts.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Michigan to Category:Tennis players from Michigan.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Minnesota to Category:Tennis players from Minnesota.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Mississippi to Category:Tennis players from Mississippi.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Montana to Category:Tennis players from Montana.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Nebraska to Category:Tennis players from Nebraska.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Nevada to Category:Tennis players from Nevada.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from New Hampshire to Category:Tennis players from New Hampshire.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from New Jersey to Category:Tennis players from New Jersey.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from New Mexico to Category:Tennis players from New Mexico.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from New York (state) to Category:Tennis players from New York (state).
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from North Carolina to Category:Tennis players from North Carolina.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Ohio to Category:Tennis players from Ohio.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Oklahoma to Category:Tennis players from Oklahoma.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Oregon to Category:Tennis players from Oregon.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Pennsylvania to Category:Tennis players from Pennsylvania.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Rhode Island to Category:Tennis players from Rhode Island.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from South Carolina to Category:Tennis players from South Carolina.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Tennessee to Category:Tennis players from Tennessee.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Texas to Category:Tennis players from Texas.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Utah to Category:Tennis players from Utah.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Washington, D.C. to Category:Tennis players from Washington, D.C.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Virginia to Category:Tennis players from Virginia.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Washington (state) to Category:Tennis players from Washington (state).
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from West Virginia to Category:Tennis players from West Virginia.
Propose merging Category:Tennis people from Wisconsin to Category:Tennis players from Wisconsin.

Nominator's rationale: These categories contain only a handful pages, all players. They fit better in the "players" category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The American tennis categories are a mess and this is part of trying to bring some organization to it. I was surprised there wasn't a player's category at all but players, executives, coaches, officials all jumbled into one. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: have added all states for merging: apart from a handful of non-player coaches and executives, almost entirely all of these categories are populated with players. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it would probably be helpful to start putting articles in the right category. For example in Category:Tennis people from Pennsylvania, which is not in this nomination, there are also players. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, I am doing that currently. It will take some time. The bigger categories are a combination of coaches and players (and others) so the "people" category makes sense there (a la Category:American baseball people by state). The ones I nominated contained only players so merging makes sense. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, okay, so what I have found is that the categories are indeed almost entirely populated with players or ex-players who eventually became coaches so I will go ahead and add the remaining categories while re-categorizing any non-player coaches and executives to the appropriate categories. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, but what technically needs to happen is re-parenting of the tennis players subcategories to sportspeople of the same state, thereafter the nominated categories can be deleted. Downmerge would result in coaches-only to be added to players categories, and that is not a desirable outcome. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, just to clarify, the categories Category:American tennis players by state should be in Category:American sportspeople by state, correct? If so, I can do so manually. Additionally, the former categories should be in Category:Tennis in the United States by state as well.
Also, I am already shifting through any coaches-only. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Right! Marcocapelle (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Done and done. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose tennis people is a parent of tennis players, just as ice hockey people is a parent of ice hockey players. As many executives, commentators etc were also players, this is a needed level of categorization.--User:Namiba 02:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need the same level of granularity though. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba, they are entirely players and very few coaches who weren't players. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba, also Category:American tennis people has Category:American tennis players and Category:American tennis coaches (and this is true of almost all countries with tennis people categories) and then a cocktail of all tennis people thrown into "Tennis people by state". I created the "tennis players" categories to do just as you have suggested and found almost all were players. Additionally, this is the first step in trying to bring some organization. Please change the vote. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are 217 people in Category:American tennis coaches at the moment, many of whom were not tennis players. There are 8 articles in Category:Tennis people from Ohio. There are 11 categories in Category:Tennis people by nationality, 27 categories directly in Category:People by sport and nationality and I see no value or reason to delete only the American tennis one.--User:Namiba 18:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba, you seem to misunderstand. I'm merging the Category:American tennis people by state which only contains players, with Category:American tennis players by state which I created to move all players. But I have found that if I moved all the tennis players from "people" to "state", the "tennis people by state" category will be empty except for a handful of non-coaches.

I came here because I didn't want to spend days switching categories of what were over a thousand articles. And I assure you that I'm not deleting Category:American tennis people. I'm trying bring some organization to it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, I see why @Namiba has objected. Someone has sorted out the players and moved them to the categories in Category:American tennis players by state. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnis Scientia: I do not see it yet. There are very few tennis people who weren't tennis players before, therefore a national level suffices for non-players. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, I still agree. They have to go given the few who aren't are not really notable tennis people. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, I checked the few pages that were left and most were players who were left because they were better known in another sport (I've moved them to players) or tennis executives who I've moved to Category:Tennis executives. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've created Category:American tennis coaches by state and begun populating it. Category:Tennis coaches from California has 29 articles and counting. Petscan shows that there are many more viable coaches by state categories, as one would expect for a category containing over 200 articles before subcategories.--User:Namiba 14:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba, I would still have preferred that you would at least have waited for this discussion to close before you did that. Because not every state will have double digit tennis coaches. If California has 29 only then the rest will undoubtedly have a lot fewer. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly so but this is why it is unwise to delete Category:Tennis people from California and likely many other such categories. Doing so removes a rung of subcategories which are necessary. This all mirrors other sports and there is no reason why tennis should be treated differently.--User:Namiba 16:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I view the proposal as a downmerge for now. It's possible that we may recreate the category in the future, but it seems not helpful to keep an empty rung.

"This all mirrors other sports and there is no reason why tennis should be treated differently" well... if it works well for tennis, it could work well for other sports too. Change has to start somewhere. Mason (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, they have been emptied out of process. I have gone back and returned several articles to their proper location, i.e. tennis people in X. I note that User:Omnis Scientia has exhibited a severe case of ownership of these categories to the point of canvassing for their deletion. See my talk page, where the user wrote "What I am trying to say is that this is my project. I started it. I created the tennis player categorization. I feel that I know more about tennis to do this. It is why I am asking you to stop. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2023 "--User:Namiba 22:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba, I did not say I own the categories. You are misrepresenting what I said. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you both (and me... so we?) want what's best for the project. This will get sorted out eventually.

Re:canvasing: I'm intentionally not voting, to avoid that perception. (I did look at this category before, but didn't have strong feelings either way.) Mason (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Smasongarrison. Much appreciated.

@Namiba, I apologize. Canvasing was not my intention, I was simply trying to explain my reasoning. It is clear things got out of hand. I hope you accept my apology. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mason, that is my stance too. And to say the categories mirror other sports is VERY misleading. It does not mirror how people are categorized in other sports in the United States. Only team sports coaches have categories for MOST states. The rest are sorted into Category:American sports coaches by state. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: for context, three similar discussions (here) resulted in "Tennis people" being renamed/merged to "Tennis players" for the same reason as here (i.e. very few non-coach/non-player tennis people to have a shared category). In this case, the majority opinion is leaning towards merge so, for consistancy, should be closed as such. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, and alt merge the first to Category:American tennis players by state or territory, per Category:American people by state or territory. There's no reason to leave Washington D.C. and insular areas out. Place Clichy (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy, I will add that to speedy rename. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I get that. Do you suggest we agree in CfD for a certain target name, to immediately rename it in speedy discussion to another name? It seems more natural to immediately agree in this discussion for the good target name, provided there is consensus for it. I believe that's the case, seen the repeated consensus in CfD for names using state or territory, and the lack of voiced opposition to this individual target name so far. Place Clichy (talk) 12:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy, there are other sports categories like this which need similar renaming so I thought it would be easier to do in speedy rename. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is therefore OK to rename the other sportspeople categories in speedy, while renaming Category:American tennis people by state to Category:American tennis players by state or territory through this CfD discussion. It is a target nobody has actually argued against, if I'm not mistaken. Place Clichy (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Forms of Hindu deities

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 30#Category:Forms of Hindu deities

Category:People of the Thirteen Colonies by colony

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 2#Category:People of the Thirteen Colonies by colony

Category:Holography in fiction

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: rename and purge the first two, no consensus on the third one.

Rename Category:Holography in fiction to Category:Fiction about holography
Rename Category:Holography in films to Category:Films about holography
No consensus Category:Holography in television (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 15:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Holography in fiction to Category:Fiction about technology
Propose merging Category:Holography in films to Category:Films about technology
Propose merging Category:Holography in television to Category:Television shows about technology

Nominator's rationale: A major problem with this category is that most, if not all of the works listed in it do not feature holography as a defining aspect of their story. They are likely better off in other categories, such as Category:Fiction about computing. I have made it a merge proposal in case there are some that are not in other categories, but in reality it's likely this category should just be purged of most if not all entries. Note: It was also made by a blocked user. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Mason (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Please check if articles are already in another subcat. No proof thus far that we have works where holography is a major theme (which would be Category:Fiction about holography). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as I don't think it would be helpful to move things into a generic target outside Category:Holography. Rename the first one to Category:Fiction about holography. There do not seem to be many films that are about holograms; I would allow Spider-Man: Far From Home, Pixel Perfect, and probably Blade Runner 2049 (even A Hologram for the King (film) does not actually seem to be about holography) so purge and merge Category:Films about technology to Category:Fiction about holography and Category:Films about technology. Keep and purge the TV one, as it contains several articles where holography is defining. Some of these are articles on holographic characters and devices, not just series or episodes, so don't rename using "Television shows about". Most of its current members are Star Trek episodes featuring the holodeck, which may be navigated using Template:Star Trek holodeck stories; I think it would be sufficient to have "see also" links to that template in appropriate places and remove those episodes, so that what else is in the category can be seen more clearly. – Fayenatic London 11:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although we don't have much on Category:Fiction about holography, that's not what the category is called, and we do have plenty of examples for Category:Holography in fiction. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simple appearances of holography in fiction are not defining. A category must contain things that are defined by the use of holography, so standard sci-fi shows where holograms are used do not apply. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Chefs by ethnicity

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/merge. Category:Jewish American chefs‎ has already been merged from the other discussion. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 21:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Chefs by ethnicity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose merging Category:African-American chefs‎ with Category:American chefs and Category:African-American people
Propose merging Category:Jewish American chefs‎ with Category:American chefs and Category:American Jews
Propose merging Category:American chefs of Asian descent‎ with Category:American chefs and Category:American people of Asian descent

Nominator's rationale: Only has American chefs. And merge remaining categories to parent category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If merged, it they should also be merged to their respective ethnicity. Mason (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes very good point! I will will add them. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dual merge per @Smasongarrison's suggestion and delete Category:Chefs by ethnicity. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dual merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Category:Jewish American chefs‎ was nominated Category:Jewish American chefs. I would suggest not to have simultaneous discussions in different places about the same category. Place Clichy (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Domestic cricket competitions in 2021

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Out of synch with parent Category:Domestic cricket competitions by year which is for winter seasons only (2020–21, 2021–22, etc.). The sole entry is at WP:AFD for WP:GNG reasons. Batagur baska (talk) 06:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are more articles that could be added to the category (all the English domestic series that are in the wider categories Category:2021 in English cricket and Category:2021 in English women's cricket), not sure why do we only have categories for the winter seasons (2020-21 and 2021-22) and not the summer seasons (2021)? Joseph2302 (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified/started a wider discussion at WT:CRIC about whether we should have season categories like these. My view is there are enough articles to populate the (northern hemisphere) summer season categories too. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. I agree that the category should be expanded using English and Irish tournaments at least. We should look towards increasing the number of calendar year categories. Could someone please close this request? Thank you. Batagur baska (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Works by setting

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 29#Works by setting

Category:Rule by a subset of population

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 21:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Rule by a subset of population (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

``lets 6-month old babies participate in governance´´ polemic, WP:NPOV Geysirhead (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in intent this overlaps with the tree of Category:Discrimination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Category:Rule by a subset of population should be a subcategory of Category:Discrimination. Category:Discrimination should be a subcategory of Category:Social privilege, not vice versa. Geysirhead (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

X in fiction IX

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: rename as per nom. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 21:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rapid human age change in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about rapid human age change
Propose renaming Category:Wizards in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about wizards
Propose renaming Category:Wizards in television (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Television shows about wizards
Propose renaming Category:Bioterrorism in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about bioterrorism
Propose renaming Category:Brain–computer interfacing in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about brain–computer interface
Propose renaming Category:Chemistry in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about chemists
Propose renaming Category:Cryptography in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about cryptography
Propose renaming Category:Black holes in film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Films about black holes
Propose renaming Category:Geology in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about geology
Propose renaming Category:Laboratories in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about laboratories
Propose renaming Category:Psychosurgery in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about psychosurgery
Propose renaming Category:Brain transplantation in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about brain transplantation

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

Rename per nom. I wonder how many more of these nominations we can still expect. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There must be a lot of these. Perhaps we should have an RfC that will settle the disposition of "X in fiction" categories once and for all, so they can be done en masse using bots, without having to keep on bringing these here in batches? — The Anome (talk) 12:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Agreed, although I intentionally broke up these nominations in case users had any comments about the individual categories. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per nom, however, it should be Category:Fiction about brain–computer interfacing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main article is Brain–computer interface, and the parent Category:Brain–computer interfacing is being speedy renamed for this reason. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:White holes in film

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: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 21:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:White holes in film to Category:Fiction about white holes

Nominator's rationale: One-page subcategory in a tree with only two other members. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, or delete as the article does not even mention white holes. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:Law enforcement in the United States in fiction

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 29#Category:Law enforcement in the United States in fiction

X in fiction VIII

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: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 21:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dolls in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about dolls
Propose renaming Category:Ancient astronauts in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about ancient astronauts
Propose renaming Category:Dreams in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about dreams
Propose renaming Category:Nightmares in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about nightmares
Propose renaming Category:Discrimination in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about discrimination
Propose renaming Category:Ageism in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about ageism
Propose renaming Category:Anti-LGBT sentiment in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about anti-LGBT sentiment
Propose renaming Category:Bullying in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about bullying
Propose renaming Category:Bullying in television (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Television shows about bullying
Propose renaming Category:Racism in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about racism
Propose renaming Category:Antisemitism in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about antisemitism
Propose renaming Category:Apartheid in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about apartheid
Propose renaming Category:Eugenics in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about eugenics
Propose renaming Category:Racism in television (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Television shows about racism

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

Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Mason (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Years by state of the United States

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: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 21:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Years by state of the United States to Category:Years in the United States by state or territory

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

Support per nom Mason (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

X in fiction VII

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: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 21:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mental disorders in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about mental disorders
Propose renaming Category:Agoraphobia in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about agoraphobia
Propose renaming Category:Bipolar disorder in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about bipolar disorder
Propose renaming Category:Borderline personality disorder in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about borderline personality disorder
Propose renaming Category:Hypochondriasis in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about hypochondriasis
Propose renaming Category:Narcissism in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about narcissism
Propose renaming Category:Narcissism in television (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Television shows about narcissism
Propose renaming Category:Obsessive–compulsive disorder in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about obsessive–compulsive disorder
Propose renaming Category:Post-traumatic stress disorder in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about post-traumatic stress disorder
Propose renaming Category:Fictional portrayals of schizophrenia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about schizophrenia
Propose renaming Category:Self-harm in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Fiction about self-harm
Propose renaming Category:Alcohol abuse in television (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Television shows about alcohol abuse

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

Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Mason (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Languages of the Pygmies

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: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 21:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Languages of the Pygmies to Category:Pygmy languages

Nominator's rationale: I don't know what to name this category, but... I'm pretty sure that "Languages of the Pygmies" isn't right given the main article is Classification of Pygmy languages Mason (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename in the spirit of WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.