Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Category:Chefs by ethnicity: Closed as delete/merge (XFDcloser)
Line 601: Line 601:
*:: 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. [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]] ([[User talk:Place Clichy|talk]]) 12:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
*:: 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. [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]] ([[User talk:Place Clichy|talk]]) 12:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:Place Clichy|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. [[User:Omnis Scientia|Omnis Scientia]] ([[User talk:Omnis Scientia|talk]]) 12:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:Place Clichy|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. [[User:Omnis Scientia|Omnis Scientia]] ([[User talk:Omnis Scientia|talk]]) 12:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
*:::: 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. [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]] ([[User talk:Place Clichy|talk]]) 04:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


==== Category:Forms of Hindu deities ====
==== Category:Forms of Hindu deities ====

Revision as of 04:35, 30 December 2023

< 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) Qwerfjkltalk 12:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 page in this category. Let'srun (talk) 22:50, 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: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) Qwerfjkltalk 12:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 page in this category. Let'srun (talk) 22:49, 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: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) Qwerfjkltalk 12:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 page in this category. Let'srun (talk) 22:48, 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: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) Qwerfjkltalk 12:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Obscure and unnecessary category made by a blocked user. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:19, 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: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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a helpful distinction for immigration, this BNA describes a bundle of territories that were still british after 1782, but it isn't defining in and of itself. If kept, it should be a container category Mason (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oppose per Marcocapelle. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Omnis Scientia@Marcocapelle, How do you feel about containerizing the category. My concern is that pages are being placed by JPL in the category at the expense of more specific intersections. I'm fine with keeping it as long as its containerized. Mason (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]

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

  • Keep. So, the category is no longer "infected". As for the second part of the nominator's rationale, the articles that remain are not enough to hold this category together - I think 8 articles are enough. Doesn't seem to be the case of WP:OVERCAT. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer. First I've ever seen a Puerto Rico category not just be a direct subcat of a US cat. Not sure I see a point where this layer would ever be useful in any category given how few inhabited territories the US holds. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was addressing the underlined part of your comment where you stated "The good and usual practice for categories for Puerto Rico and other People from dependent territories with comparable status is to parent them to a state and territory or a insular areas category". That is, my position is that parenting to the "by insular area of the United States" tree is the correct way to parent US territories, and not parenting to the categories using the format "by state of territory of the United States" (which you seem to be partly proposing). My reasoning is based on the fact that insular areas are separate areas from the "US proper" areas (the States); thus parenting Category:21st-century women politicians from insular areas of the United States directly under the US category is wrong because it implies these women are American women, when they are not: they may be American citizens, but the category names doesn't use the word "citizens" at all, so it's ambiguos both ways (1) to delete it and place it as a direct subcat of a US cat (as the nominator is proposing), and is also ambiguos to (2) merge it into a cat of the format Category:21st-century American women politicians by state or territory because that would still not remove the ambiguity that women in the territories aren't Americans. (See here for a proposal to rename a "by state" category into a "by state or territory" category.) This would create "competing" tree category named "Foo by state or territory" when there already exist the properly named tree categories of "Foo by state of the United States" and "Foo by insular area of the United States" to take care of both, the US states and the US territories (aka, US insualr areas). Mercy11 (talk) 06:56, 26 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]

  • 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) Qwerfjkltalk 19:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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) Qwerfjkltalk 19:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 21:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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) Qwerfjkltalk 21:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: Raising on behalf of Globbet who wasn't sure about starting this discussion themselves. Please reply to them, not me. "The rationale is that the present subdivision is unnecessary and unhelpful. By the nature of the subject, the overall size of the category can never grow much larger." - RichT|C|E-Mail 14:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In what way is this 'unhelpful'? Why is 'can never grow much larger' relevant? Are we to delete Category:Continents too?
Category:Preserved stationary steam engines is a tiny fraction of what it could be, potentially huge, and I fail to see why any subcateorization of it is now a problem? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Potential size: the number of notable preserved stationary steam engines is not so big. Where are all these surviving but derelict beam engines?
Unhelpful:
(a) Unnecesarily small subcats make an overview more difficult and make the user do unnecessary work. They are ergonomically suboptimal. If you want to use subcats to distingush types, then a list might be a better approach.
(b) Having a subcat for one particular configuration is not logical (except perhaps on the grounds of population size). Why not have subcats for other equally valid and distinctive configurations such as horizontal, vertical, and inverted vertical? Well, because they would be too small to be anything other than a navigational nuisance.
Comparison: I don't think Continents is a subcat, and I could offer a reductio ad absurdum too, but won't bother. Globbet (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Possible future wars

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

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

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

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

Category:Immigrants to British Hong Kong

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

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

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

Category:Festivals in Chile by year

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

Category:Festivals in Colombia by year

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

Jewish sportspeople

Nominator's rationale: I'm in favor of keeping this category as part of Category:Jewish sportspeople. For full disclosure, I created it today, unaware that it had been deleted per recent discussion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
Oppose Hi @Place Clichy, I created the category. Let me explain my reasoning. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy, of course there isn't such a thing as Jewish ice hockey but Jewish people do play ice hockey and hence are Jewish sportspeople. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy, pinging you.
I have NOW read the previous discussion which was split between "keep" and "delete". As I also note, the person who started that Cfd did so under the guise that it was about religion, not ethnicity. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted in the speedy discussion, OF COURSE there isn't such a thing as Jewish ice hockey. But Jewish ice hockey players exist and they would be in Category:Jewish sportspeople.
I'm also in favor of keeping Category:Jewish American ice hockey players because its part of Category:Jewish American sportspeople and many American sportspeople are categorized by ethnicity AND sports. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, @Smasongarrison.
Given this is part of a larger discussion: sportspeople include athletes of different sports, broadcasters, executives, etc. There HAS to be further categorization in this regard. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Israeli sentiment

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Transport disasters by decade

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

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

Category:Festival in Gilgit baltistan

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

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

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

Category:Expatriates in British North America

Nominator's rationale: Expatriates in British North America is not defining, when there are more specific categories.Mason (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British North America comprised the colonial territories of the British Empire in North America from 1783 onwards," which I don't think is helpful as a distinction for expatriates. They should be placed in a specific colony/terrority. If kept, this category should be containerized as people don't tend to be defined as "British North American". Mason (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • You may be quoting the article, but if so subcategories are being misused for Thirteen Colonies. Split into a "pre-confederation Canada" and "thirteen colonies": look at the content of English emigrants subcat. I have no objection in principle, but how do you propose to keep emigrants to New York from being placed (or misplaced) in the Brit N Am cat? Category names sometimes have to be more precise than articles. Classicvally the categories for Birmingham have to be at "Birmingham, West Midlands", to keep out Birmingham AL. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional water monsters

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

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

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

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

Category:Discrimination in the Arab world

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Danish sportspeople by century

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

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

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

Category:Moroccan people of Jewish descent

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

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

Category:Lists of unrealized projects by artist

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

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

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

Category:Spanish people of the colonial Philippines

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

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

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

Category:Fictional reptilians

Merge Category:Fictional reptilians to Category:Anthropomorphic reptiles
Nomimator's rationale: The term "reptilian" is rather vaguely defined by this category. It currently seems to consist primarily of articles about humanoid characters that look like reptiles. Therefore it is redundant. AHI-3000 (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I strongly oppose any weird alternative suggestions to merge or delete Category:Anthropomorphic reptiles in any way, this is one of multiple similarly named subcategories of Category:Anthropomorphic animals. AHI-3000 (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Category:Businesspeople from the Colony of Queensland

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

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

Category:American tennis people by state

Nominator's rationale: These categories contain only a handful pages, all players. They fit better in the "players" category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The American tennis categories are a mess and this is part of trying to bring some organization to it. I was surprised there wasn't a player's category at all but players, executives, coaches, officials all jumbled into one. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: have added all states for merging: apart from a handful of non-player coaches and executives, almost entirely all of these categories are populated with players. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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]
I've created Category:American tennis coaches by state and begun populating it. Category:Tennis coaches from California has 29 articles and counting. Petscan shows that there are many more viable coaches by state categories, as one would expect for a category containing over 200 articles before subcategories.--User:Namiba 14:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Namiba, I would still have preferred that you would at least have waited for this discussion to close before you did that. Because not every state will have double digit tennis coaches. If California has 29 only then the rest will undoubtedly have a lot fewer. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Undoubtedly so but this is why it is unwise to delete Category:Tennis people from California and likely many other such categories. Doing so removes a rung of subcategories which are necessary. This all mirrors other sports and there is no reason why tennis should be treated differently.--User:Namiba 16:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I view the proposal as a downmerge for now. It's possible that we may recreate the category in the future, but it seems not helpful to keep an empty rung.
"This all mirrors other sports and there is no reason why tennis should be treated differently" well... if it works well for tennis, it could work well for other sports too. Change has to start somewhere. Mason (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases, they have been emptied out of process. I have gone back and returned several articles to their proper location, i.e. tennis people in X. I note that User:Omnis Scientia has exhibited a severe case of ownership of these categories to the point of canvassing for their deletion. See my talk page, where the user wrote "What I am trying to say is that this is my project. I started it. I created the tennis player categorization. I feel that I know more about tennis to do this. It is why I am asking you to stop. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2023 "--User:Namiba 22:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Namiba, I did not say I own the categories. You are misrepresenting what I said. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you both (and me... so we?) want what's best for the project. This will get sorted out eventually.
Re:canvasing: I'm intentionally not voting, to avoid that perception. (I did look at this category before, but didn't have strong feelings either way.) Mason (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Smasongarrison. Much appreciated.
@Namiba, I apologize. Canvasing was not my intention, I was simply trying to explain my reasoning. It is clear things got out of hand. I hope you accept my apology. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mason, that is my stance too. And to say the categories mirror other sports is VERY misleading. It does not mirror how people are categorized in other sports in the United States. Only team sports coaches have categories for MOST states. The rest are sorted into Category:American sports coaches by state. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

Category:Forms of Hindu deities

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT. Already part of Hindu deities Cat via individual deity categories. Redtigerxyz Talk 04:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People of the Thirteen Colonies by colony

Nominator's rationale: The names in Category:People of the Thirteen Colonies by colony should be "People from *colony name*". I have also added the parent category for renaming. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Place Clichy, I assume you do agree with the name change. Just for clarification. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The present Category:People of Georgia (British colony) avoids the 'colonial colony' redundancy, and there seems to be no issue of fitting into the format. The British also colonized South Georgia, BTW. My personal inclination for the target name would be, by order of preference, 1° Category:People from Georgia (British colony) > 2° Category:People from colonial Georgia (British America) > 3° Category:People from colonial Georgia (British colony) > 4° Category:People from colonial Georgia. The second option also avoids both redundancy and ambiguity, and it fits into the format. But I would not let that stand in the way of the renaming from of... to from... @Omnis Scientia, Marcocapelle, and Smasongarrison: ping for opinion. Place Clichy (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy, I was initially in favor of using the names of the colonies i.e. "People from the Province of Massachusetts Bay" and "People from the Colony of Virginia" and so on since it leaves out any ambiguity. The category Category:People of the Province of New York is an example. That said, I worried it might make navigation harder. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the Georgia category to Category:People from the Province of Georgia to match Category:Province of Georgia and Province of Georgia. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Holography in fiction

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

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

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

Category:Chefs by ethnicity

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) Qwerfjkltalk 21:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]

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

Nominator's rationale: Out of synch with parent Category:Domestic cricket competitions by year which is for winter seasons only (2020–21, 2021–22, etc.). The sole entry is at WP:AFD for WP:GNG reasons. Batagur baska (talk) 06:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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) Qwerfjkltalk 21:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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) Qwerfjkltalk 21:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Conversion from X in fiction to Fiction about X, as this must be a defining trait. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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) Qwerfjkltalk 21:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One-page subcategory in a tree with only two other members. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:04, 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) Qwerfjkltalk 21:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Conversion from X in fiction to Fiction about X, as this must be a defining trait. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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) Qwerfjkltalk 21:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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) Qwerfjkltalk 21:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Conversion from X in fiction to Fiction about X, as this must be a defining trait. Category:Narcissism in fiction and Category:Narcissism in television and its subcategories also need to be purged of characters, presumably an attempt to bypass the repeated deletion of Category:Fictional narcissists in 2007–08. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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) Qwerfjkltalk 21:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_21&oldid=1192581284"