Knowledge (XXG)

:Categories for discussion/All current discussions - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Speedy renaming and merging

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

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

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

* ] to ] – Reason ~~~~

If the current name should be redirected rather than deleted, use: 

* REDIRECT ] to ] – Reason ~~~~

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

* NO BOTS ] to ] – Reason ~~~~

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

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 23:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 2,081 open requests (refresh).

Current requests

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

I guess you responded after I stopped checking regularly for a response, so thank you for the note on my talk page. DGG is deceased, so it's obviously not an option to seek his input. I'm opposed to using obscure corners of project space to bypass discussion on items which should be discussed. Some editors in those project spaces appear only interested in pursuing (a purely superficial notion ) consistency, often without regard for whether there was any consistency involved WRT consensus enroute to that point. Hence, my earlier mention venue-shopping. I have no strong opinion on capitalization variants other than they're often time wasters that stand in the way of moving the project forward. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question @RadioKAOS, we need to know whether you're opposing just the national monuments nominations, or also the national forest nominations. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
I left them a message after the above reply on their talk page and I've left them another one now. We still need clarity on whether the objection is just to the national monuments renamings, or the other renamings as well, including the national forests. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
This is a ridiculous failure of communication... They've been pinged for clarity four times and had three messages left on their talk page about this. Personally I think it's reasonable to proceed with all but the national monuments nominations since there's been a lot of effort made to seek out clarity on this and they're not providing it. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe they're talking about the monuments categories solely, but I'm obviously a bit biased as the nominator. Any thoughts @Ymblanter? Hey man im josh (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh, I full support this move but I'd say move this to full Cfd, just to be safe. At this point, it is safe to say this person is deliberatly ignoring you. If they have an objection, they can raise it there. If not, then they had numerous oppertunities to do so. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Opposed requests

@HouseBlaster: Yes. Instead of doing a speedy move, can you do a move discussion, and post the rationale there? Perhaps WP:CONSUB. @Dekimasu:, would you like to interpret your original close? Did that cover this too? User_talk:Dekimasu#LGBT_->_LGBTQ_move Bluerasberry (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Multiple people have already supported the move of sub articles (whether it be in Talk:LGBTQ community#Requested move 27 August 2024 RM and (myself including) have started moving various articles that are uncontroversial as many have for a long term already explained the Q in addition to the LGBT. The relevant policy that covers the category now following suit is WP:C2D.
Do you want a collective category move discussion for all categories as a sort of “sampling”? In any case I don’t think there will be any good policy based reason to oppose, other than the personal WP:JDL at this point and we should stop rehashing the same arguments over and over. As for you pinging the closer of the original RM, asking for interpretation, he already did that in his close he noted: This move may require changes to the article text to conform to the new title, and may imply that templates, categories, etc. should also be moved; please consider contributing to this sort of cleanup. - so yes, it implied that categories will likely (using the word may) follow suit in line with our existing consistency policies (CONSUB for artices, C2D for categories) for main and sub-topic relationships. Raladic (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Raladic (cc: Ymblanter), a common position I see in the move review discussion was that the RM result should strictly only apply to the article, while further renaming of the very numerous associated pages should be subject to further discussion I'd throw in another oppose for all these LGBT/LGBTQ speedies. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
@Paul 012 - This blanket opposition to "all LGBT moves" is not in line with policy.
The 2 latest requests I made above:
LGBTQ writers, LGBTQ events
were carefully submitted in line with their respective eponymous List of LGBTQ writers and List of LGBTQ events articles titles.
A blanket statement of saying we need to now run all of these category moves, whether they were bulk, or whether they actually were very deliberate and definitely uncontroversial through the bureaucracy of full category move reviews with an WP:SNOW outcome, then that just grinds us to a halt for no reason. Raladic (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Those two list articles were only recently moved by you, and not as a result of the RM discussion, which they were not named as part of. C2D does not apply here. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
C2D is not preempted just because I was the one that moved them, if those BOLD moves were still uncontroversial (which is the case there, as those pages I moved have LGBTQ events and LGBTQ writers explicitly).
C2D does allow a cat move even if the article it is based on was or (ii) unilaterally to reflect an official renaming which is verified by one or more citations
While my rename was bold, it still is well in line with our article policies, both on CONSUB, but also more specifically for those articles as I just outlined as I checked the content.
Arguably, I didn't provide a citation for the catmove itself as the unilateral part requests (as I missed that part), so on procedural grounds I can see someone could request one and place it on hold, which I'll be happy to provide.
But I dispute that C2D doesn't apply outright on this careful and deliberately selected move. Raladic (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
There is no reason to move quickly with a mass rename of tens of thousands of articles. I am asking for days, not unreasonable delays. I am not re-arguing this as I never got to participate in the move discussion anyway. This started as a move discussion attended by 20 people for one article, and now it is 100,000 moves of links and prose. I do not object to the moves if consensus is there but I want someone, perhaps the closing admin, to take responsibility for the decision that the one-article move discussion was sufficient for these massive changes. At Knowledge (XXG):Move_review/Log/2024_September the closing admin said, I did not write here or elsewhere that the result should be used to "radiate everything outwards" without discussion.. The original move discussion was sufficiently attended for what it was - the move of a single article - but I am arguing that it was not sufficiently attended for mass changes of Knowledge (XXG) and what could very well be a change big enough to make the news and be the subject of anthropology studies. I am ready to stand down but I am trying hard to find a venue to have a voice in this. At the move discussion I feel like the subject was whether that one article's move was legitimate, and I agree it was, but I still want to be heard about the next cohort of several thousand moves when they are considered collectively. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
And that's why, just as I also expressed in the MR and some other editors as well, I posted after the initial RM, the notification on The WikiProject to ensure that the community agreed that in line with our long standing understanding of active members of the project and various sub articles (which I have participated in), that after we found consensus for the main article, likely this would also allow the movement of sub articles. Also as I already noted, this wasn't just the understanding of this single RM that ultimately triggered the move, but the follow up to last years RM, which already pointed everything in that direction and many active editors in the Wikiproject and the space were aware of it and anticipated it, so it didn't come as a surprise to any of us. Prior to the final move to LGBTQ, many sub-articles were repeatedly changed back to "LGBT", even though those pages were always explicitly about LGBTQ, but that was always shot down with the inverse argument of "we want consistency, so we'll keep it LGBT under CONSUB. So those inverse arguments can't have it both ways, now that we do have the main article moved to LGBTQ.
Now I have not moved tens of thousands of pages, nor am I advocating for it in a rush. I first posted the notice to the Wikiproject after the RM and waited, to ensure my feeling on this wasn't wrong, and you expressed opposition, which was discussed there, as well as in the MR, but beyond that, most active editors of the project appear to have had the same thoughts as me as they've followed it closely over the years. Following the SNOW outcome of the MR and not seeing any clear good policy based reasoning for further opposition of moving some sub-articles, I have now started with some individual, very deliberate uncontroversial moves of articles that have already discussed LGBTQ in the article bodies for a long time, including the sourcing to support it (basically using the litmus test of "if someone did decide that they disagreed with my BOLD move, would it be very likely that policy based my move would be supported by a subsequent formal RM for that sub-article (basically following our policies of WP:BEFOREMOVING).
Also independent of my own feeling and the notice, some other editors also appear to feel that it has become appropriate and have started moving a handful of articles. Separate to the few articles I have moved myself over the past few days, none of which have had any opposition from people, in fact, quite the opposite as I've gotten a few "thanks" for them, showing explicit support. So now I'm simply following up and nominating those categories to follow those articles that I believe are uncontroversial, based on the topics they cover. I think the move of many articles (and categories and the likes) will take many months, might even be a year or longer, since we want to be deliberate about it and even just the few articles I have moved, have required a lot of post cleanup, such as link corrections in templates, default sorts and updating article leads and prose as appropriate. But I don't think that it is unreasonable to get started with it in line with those topics that arguably are covering LGBTQ topics and doing so slowly as I have started. An article at a time. Raladic (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
@Raladic: Okay, everything seems cool then. Some articles are moved, and that's fine, and more people know, and that is good too. There was a move discussion last year - that's nice, let's build from that. Now that we have the attention of 100+ people and we know that the discussion is about moving all of this per CONSUB, can we move this to full category discussion? I support pinging everyone who has ever shown interest, to confirm we have consensus for this. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think we so need a collective discussion that says "should every single article be moved" as that question does not have a simple "yes/no" answer, the answer inevitably is "it depends on the context".
Instead, I think the right path forward, and that which I have taken so far is to raise awareness where we can, and go one by one on specific articles, whether it be with WP:BOLD moves with my own abilities as an editor to interpret that article X can likely uncontroversially be moved and stands a reasonable chance based on the data. Or for cases where there may be more contention, that someone will open an RM for that particular article and then it will be moved.
Even from a technical standpoint, we can't bulk move articles because of all the post-cleanup that has to be done manually, so I think doing these moves and trusting editors judgement of whether to be bold (and be subject to a retroactive RM if someone does find contention in a move) or do an RM is the right move, individually, per article. Raladic (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Note that the now full Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 11#LGBT nominations which were opposed at CFDS category discussion for those categories that @HouseBlaster nominated is underway and it also looks like a SNOW case and a very experienced editors has questioned why the speedy move requests were opposed procedurally to begin with.
So I think I'd take that one full CfD as the litmus test for these category moves and hope that after it, we can proceed with the others as CfDS, such as my above ones that were very deliberate. Raladic (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
As it stands now, I will not be willing to move everything anything via CFDS. We always have extremely vocal people coming a week after everything has been moved demanding that the categories get moved back because they oppose the move but were not around during the 48h nomination period. And processing these categories is a lot of my time. I believe my (limited) time is best spent on something else than on moving thousands of categories back and forth.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Hear hear, @Ymblanter. It's about time to move on, I think. We're currently having the same discussion in multiple places and it's becoming a huge time sink.

You state yourself, @Bluerasberry, that at least part of your objection is based on being heard rather than policy. In a single post yesterday, you said:

  • "I never got to participate in the move discussion"
  • "I want someone, perhaps the closing admin, to take responsibility for the decision"
  • "I am trying hard to find a venue to have a voice in this"
  • "I still want to be heard"

Your words strongly suggest, at least to me, that this is actually about feeling unheard and your sense of unfairness that this discussion was resolved without you. And I get that—it sucks when you get left out, or you miss out on something, or it seems no one agrees with you. But I do think you have been listened to—multiple times—and your viewpoint has been taken onboard.

I don't intend my comments as a personal attack, so I apologise if I seem blunt, but your remaining objections no longer seem to be based on valid WP policy. Your policy-based arguments, on the other hand, have all been addressed and discussed in turn, and you've slowly retreated from those arguments. Most people didn't agree with your interpretation of those policies or believe other policies are more relevant, and it seems unlikely anyone is going to change their minds here.

So, in the end, your remaining argument largely seems to boil down to WP:DONTLIKEIT, and holding the process hostage based on this (again, IMO) risks becoming disruptive. I suspect others are getting tired of the same debate, too.

@Raladic's suggestion of addressing each page on a case-by-case basis (following WP:CONSUB where there isn't a specific reason to use another initialism) seems to me to be a very pragmatic one. In fact, it gives people the option to discuss such changes on each individual page, which allows even more people to potentially engage in the discussion—which is exactly what you want, anyway. It doesn't rely on people having to engage with a process within a limited timeframe, either.

It would be great if we could draw a line under this now. I hope we can. Lewisguile (talk) 11:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
I think this is what is happening: "Because of the move discussion at Talk:LGBTQ#Requested_move_14_August_2024, we have now established consensus to move all all instances of LGBT to LGBTQ. This includes categories, wikilinks, and instances of the term in prose, and may be a change of the term in 100,000+ instances. Here we apply that consensus to categories."
@Lewisguile: is this an accurate statement of your reasoning? I am still surprised about the speed and impact of all of this, and want confirmation of what is happening. Is there another consensus statement in support of the move somewhere, or is this the one? Bluerasberry (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't say that's quite right. It seems to me that, with the consensus to change LGBT-->LGBTQ, there is a case for moving many, but perhaps not all, pages using the former initialism to the latter, and that this can be done via WP:BOLD as per WP:CONSUB. And I believe that, in most cases, this change will be non-controversial based on policy and changing common usage.

But there will, obviously, be pages that need to stay as LGBT, or some other, related initialism—not least because of proper names of organisations. In those cases, it will mostly be obvious from context (an org called, f'rex, LGBT Organisation would need to retain its name in the relevant article). Where it is debatable, discussion and the requested moves process can help us reach consensus in those specific cases. We therefore don't need a drawn out process to make a blanket decision, because a blanket decision isn't required.

Links currently pointed to LGBT will also redirect to LGBTQ anyway, so there doesn't need to be a sudden effort to change everything. Most of this will happen in time as people edit and tweak individual articles, and/or when any moves occur. That removes the worry that 100,000s of changes will need to be made immediately. Lewisguile (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

On hold pending other discussion

Moved to full discussion

Current discussions

September 19

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Redirects from external links

Nominator's rationale: {{r from external link}} has been deleted, so I believe this is eligible for speedy deletion under WP:C4, but 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:D69:7CF2:4B8A:3610 contested this because Liz recently tagged the category with {{emptycat}}. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Speedy is only intended for uncontroversial deletions, and the recent tagging demonstrates that deletion is not uncontroversial. There was limited discussion of these cases previously with some feeling that pages tagged with Template:Emptycat should never be eligible for C4, and others being OK if the template was a holdover from a past time that was no longer applicable. Regardless, given the timing here C4 should not be used.
Anyway, XFD is flatly better to speedy deletion in every aspect except volume management, and the clearer consensus created by discussion is often of value going forward. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:BCD7:AA73:70F1:F07C (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - I created the now-deleted rcat template and companion category several years ago because consensus at the time was that we should maintain malformed incoming link targets. This largely had to do with a bug in Reddit markup which caused some links with trailing punctuation to omit a closing parenthesis in the actual hyperlink, which meant that links from Reddit to Knowledge (XXG) pages with parenthetical disambiguators were frequently broken. That bug seems to have long since been corrected. Consensus now seems to be that we should let any remaining malformed incoming links rot instead, and so such redirects will generally always be deleted (unless some other rcat applies), and this category will always be empty. Ivanvector (/Edits) 21:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic literature

Nominator's rationale: An unnecessary group of subcategories made by the same blocked disruptive user. There are not enough actual pages to merit the existence of subcategories, and they can easily fit within the parent category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Note: They should all be dual-merged into the matching "Star Wars X" or "X based on Star Wars" parent categories as well if necessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Years of the 20th century in North Vietnam

Nominator's rationale: merge, duplicate scope in South Vietnam, all years were in the 20th century. Rename North Vietnam for consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Closed military installations

Nominator's rationale: I can see no useful distinction between "closed" and "former". – Fayenatic London 07:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag all of the "former" categories. Discussion on direction of renaming/merging would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment. The nominator is absolutely right about distinction between the two terms. However, semantically speaking "closed" implies a certain process that makes a particular object "former". Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Will there be a change like instead of "Former country" to "Closed country" in order to make everything uniform? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Selena y Los Dinos

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous parent category here is unnecessary just for a members subcat, especially since Category:Selena exists. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 04:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that is enough to warrant an eponymous category for the group. Plus, the Selena category serves the same purpose and is more all encompassing. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 07:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two subcategories and Selena y Los Dinos in this category as of relisting. Is this enough for it to be kept?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Comics retailers

Nominator's rationale: split, we do not usually mix biographies and companies. This is a kind of undoing of the result of this 2008 discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Comics retailers in Canada.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Infectious disease deaths in the Seljuk Empire

Nominator's rationale: delete, category contains only one article which is not helpful for navigation. Merging is not needed, the article is also in Category:Infectious disease deaths in Syria. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Furry stubs

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub category with little prospect of expansion to the required size. As always, stub categories are not free for just any user to create on a whim for any topic of personal interest -- there have to be at least 60 articles to file in a stub category before it can be created, and for that very reason stub categories have to be proposed to Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Stub sorting for discussion before they can be created. But this was never proposed for discussion, and there's only one article here with no prospect of finding 59 others quickly: the mainspace category Category:Furry fandom doesn't even contain 60 articles total across it and all of its subcategories combined, and what it does contain isn't all (or even mostly) stubs.
The template isn't as much of a problem -- the minimum bar for a stub template isn't 60 articles, as templates can file articles into higher-level stub categories in the meantime even if they don't yet have enough articles to get their own dedicated category. So I'm fine with keeping it if somebody can think of an appropriate higher-level category that it can be moved to -- but as a stub template does have to file its entries somewhere, it also has to be deleted if a replacement stub category can't be found. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:British businesspeople in the natural gas industry

Nominator's rationale: Contains only a single article which is about the chief executive of an energy supplier. AusLondonder (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Georgian–Seljuk wars

Nominator's rationale: rename, per actual content, except for one article they are all about battles. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Catering and food service companies of Scotland

Nominator's rationale: Contains no articles and only a subcat not about catering and food service companies (Category:Hotels in Scotland) AusLondonder (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Lutilodix

Nominator's rationale: https://doi.org/10.1071/IS22049 NotAGenious (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Finishing (construction)

Nominator's rationale: Useless category containing a single article. AusLondonder (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Places named after Canadian politicians

Nominator's rationale: WP:SHAREDNAME violations. Per longstanding consensus, we do not categorize things for who or what they were named after. Bearcat (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Fire prevention in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Only subcat by country in the Category:Fire prevention tree and contains only a single redirect to Building regulations in the United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:University and college field hockey venues in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge this underpopulated category Category:University and college field hockey venues in the United Kingdom (1). Mason (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:College sports teams by university

Nominator's rationale: Redudant category layer Mason (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Subfields of astrophysics

Nominator's rationale: Duel upmerge. This category is underpopulated, and not helpful for navigation with only two pages in it Mason (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Hyperinflations

Nominator's rationale: Duel merge. There are only two pages in here that, which isn't helpful for navigation. If not merged, the category should be renamed to Hyperinflation to reflect the topic category Hyperinflation Mason (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Olympic Games swimming controversies

Nominator's rationale: I think we should purge and selectively merge this category because olympic swimming controversies are vague, and we don't really have enough content in Swimming controversies that are non-olympic to justify diffusing Mason (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:TripleS (group)

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) 15:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

:Nominator's rationale: The group doesn’t require disambiguation. The category should simply be renamed to "TripleS." Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 08:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand. How do I withdraw my request? Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 08:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
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:Stations of Tokyo Toden

Nominator's rationale: merge, only one article in the category, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Tram stops in Switzerland by municipality

Nominator's rationale: merge, only one subcategory in the category, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:People associated with the Livonian Order

Nominator's rationale: rename, "associated with" is unnecessarily vague. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Game jam video games

Nominator's rationale: Having been initially created as part of a game jam is not defining for these games. While it can be an interesting factoid that shows how game jams help inspire developers, my guess is that most players of Celeste, Inscryption, etc. don't know or care that it originated in a game jam, and it certainly isn't mentioned prominently in the gaming media. That makes this category fail WP:NONDEF. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Just because some players may not know the game originated from a game jam doesn't invalidate that there is recognization of what game jams produce in the industry as a whole, so this is a defining category. Also, "not mentioned prominently in gaming media" can be disproven with sources, , , etc. --Masem (t) 03:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I can't read the first two sources but the third is surely irrelevant for this discussion. It proves notability of the topic, but it does not prove that it is defining for e.g. Amnesia Fortnight 2012. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    What I meant is that it is not typically mentioned when the gaming press talks about a particular game. Of course, game jams are notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
    If it's needed to show how games created through game jams are recognized post release as such games, it becomes a matter of picking examples, and this will depend on the impact of the game and relationship to coverage.
    A well known game is Inscryption and those sources are plenty eg , , . Or Goat Simulator, , , .
    The idea is comparable to how a projects originates such as in Category:Crowdfunded video games and even to a degree of Category:Indie games (though here this has no question of being defining). The implication that players may not care about these is short sighted since these are a significant vector of new games into the industry and the industry recognizes the importance of game jams. — Masem (t) 19:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Surnames of Lechitic origin

Nominator's rationale: Completely redundant very thin linguistic layers. --Altenmann >talk 00:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)



September 18

Category:Fictional criminal organizations

Nominator's rationale: "Criminal organization" and "organized crime group" are synonymous. No reason for separate categories to exist. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:History of language education

Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful for navigation as only contains two redirects. Appears to be limited scope for expansion. AusLondonder (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Documentary television series about higher education

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. There's only one page in this underpopulated category. Mason (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Districts of Uddevalla

Nominator's rationale: rename, technically these are "localities" in Uddevalla Municipality but "populated places" is the term more often used in categories. Villages or hamlets are also okayish, but the current "districts" does not make any sense. After renaming to populated places, Uddevalla may be added to the category.Marcocapelle (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Subdivisions of Landskrona

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. For context, Landskrona is a town with just over 30.000 people. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Landskrona IP

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCVENUE, we do not have venue categories containing incidental events. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Centuries in Gelsenkirchen

Nominator's rationale: merge, the parent category is otherwise empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:American Association Triple Crown winners

Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:NARROWCAT; there are only going to be two articles here because the league, while considered a major league, was a brief one. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Support per nom. Narrow cat definitely applies. Further the pages can just be interlinked. FYI. The wall of text is from the category creator, who isn't engaging in the concerns raised in the nomination and instead seems to assume that the nominator has an agenda. Omnis is making an extremely reasonable nomination. That I would have made had I come across the category first. Mason (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and note that this nomination is A) by the same person who nominated the parent category for deletion less than three months ago, and B) carried out in concert with a series of other moves depopulating the category Category:Major League Baseball Triple Crown winners by removing subcategories for Negro League and American Association players. The supposed rationale for removing the Negro Leagues was that although considered "Major Leagues", they're not part of "Major League Baseball", and therefore only get to go under "baseball", not "Major League Baseball", which must only contain subcategories for the American League and National League. The nominator also didn't bother to notify me of this nomination, which I only discovered when checking what changes had been made to an item on my watchlist.
The overall effect of these moves is to make all other triple crown winners harder to find by adding unnecessary side-branches in the category tree, just so that the main category will only contain American League and National League players. It's ironic that this nomination is based on the category being a small one that can't be expanded, when the nominator has reduced another category (which the nominator previously argued shouldn't even exist) from seven items to four, and seeks to preclude any others from being added to it.
The pretext given is that "Major League Baseball" refers to an organization consisting only of the American League and National League, and therefore excludes all other leagues. This can only cause confusion for readers, who will expect all "Major League" triple crown winners to be included, and either assume incorrectly that there must not be any others, or wonder why they have been excluded. Shunting all other triple crown winners into "baseball" along with topics about the minor leagues and amateur baseball carries the message that they are inherently lesser achievements. Nothing useful is accomplished by making the whole category structure more complicated, and hiding or deleting subcategories so that their members are harder to find. P Aculeius (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
@P Aculeius, please see WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH and WP:NARROWCAT; only two articles aren't enough to warrant a category. I apologize for not informing you; I'm guess the Twinkle setting glitched but it was not my intention.
Also see this discussion about this AFD about keeping the leagues distinguished due to Ngl players being deliberately kept out of the two MLB leagues - the NL and the AL - and are distinct leagues because of that. Retroactive recognition by MLB will not change the reality these players played in. Omnis Scientia (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
You tried to eliminate the parent category, and now less than three months later, you're depopulating it by moving or proposing to delete its subcategories. Your rationale for deleting the American Association category is that it only contains two entries, and can't be expanded; but in the process you're reducing the parent category from seven items to four, and precluding it from being expanded. That looks very much like a pattern, as well as a set-up for renominating the main category for deletion.
Your distinction of "Major League Baseball" consisting only of the American and National Leagues is flawed, both because the description of a "major league" is officially defined to include the American Association and Negro Leagues (as well as several other leagues that didn't produce any triple crown winners), which should therefore be included under the same heading in the category tree; but also because as a legal entity "Major League Baseball" did not exist until 2000, meaning that under your criteria for inclusion there has only been one "Major League Baseball triple crown winner": Miguel Cabrera in 2012. Every other member of the four remaining subcategories preceded the formation of "Major League Baseball", and would thus have to be excluded as well. The distinction that you're making produces a nonsensical result.
The AFD you refer to is about whether it made sense to keep a list of Negro League players who later played in the Major Leagues, which was nominated for deletion because Negro Leaguers are now officially considered Major Leaguers, and therefore all of them played in the Major Leagues. The discussion was closed as "keep" in just over a day since nobody agreed with the nomination. Some of those who replied made a point of how at the time they existed the Negro Leagues were most definitely not considered Major Leagues; but the respondents' point was not that they were not Major Leagues, but that the distinction made prior to integration was relevant to whether such a list was worth having. Thus the AFD to which you refer is not pertinent to this discussion.
The fact that Major League Baseball—and most other organizations devoted to recording the history of the Major Leagues—recognizes the statistics of the Negro Leagues, American Association, Union Association, Players' League, and Federal League on par with those of the American and National Leagues, means that there is no justification for excluding all records other than those of the American and National Leagues from the heading of "Major League Baseball"; it is a distinction without a practical difference. This is not to say that these records should not be grouped by league; doing so is traditional for many reasons. The part that makes no sense is to consider the American and National Leagues together, and keep them separate from the eleven other leagues that are also considered to have been "Major Leagues".
Normally I would agree that a subcategory with only two entries is unnecessary; but all of the other Major League triple crown winners are categories by league, and eliminating the American Association category would require its entries to be diffused into the parent category, which is a container category without any other individual entries. But what you have done is removed the Negro Leagues as well, and shunted them into "baseball" rather than "Major League Baseball". And this makes them harder to find, or to put it another way, makes the category tree harder to navigate. The advantages of keeping all categories of Major League triple crown winners within the same container category outweigh any value in the technical distinction between "Major League Baseball" and "the Major Leagues", or any concern about there being only two entries under "American Association triple crown winners". If you were going to diffuse the latter's members into a parent category, you ought also to diffuse the other subcategories; that would mean fifty-four entries currently sorted into six subcategories.
The whole scheme of moves and deletions produced today only makes a mess of what had been a simple and intuitive category tree, and if it isn't intended to resurrect the argument for deleting the parent category from last June, then its only justification is splitting hairs by distinguishing between "the Major Leagues" and "Major League Baseball"—itself a dubious proposition, since the American and National Leagues were separate entities until 2000. This nomination should be withdrawn, since the category is justified as a necessary subcategory of a container category that should include the nominated category's contents, along with the two Negro League categories that were simultaneously removed from it—and which should be restored. P Aculeius (talk) 06:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
@P Aculeius, I won't be reading through that since you're clearly not assuming good faith. All I will say is that my only object to the MLB triple crown category was the term "winners" since I don't think its something which can be won but rather should be earned. Of course, many people thought otherwise and made good arguments which I ultimately agree with so I respect that.
And the Ngl categories are still seperate from MLB ones; hence why I referred to the AFD because I wasn't going to make that argument all over again when many have done so there eloquently. That's the current status quo; its complicated and you can disagree but that's how it was decided.
But none of that complicated debate has anything to do with THIS CFD which is based on WP:NARROWCAT and nothing else. I would appreciate if you don't derail this Cfd with long, unreadable texts which are unrelated. MLB is the NL and AL to most people who don't even know about the brief leagues before modern MLB began at the turn of the 20th-century. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment, in most cases I would have immediately supported a nomination like this. The reason I didn't, this time, is because the target contains almost no articles in the root, and it is not likely there will be other articles any time soon (if only because this is not a batch nomination). I am not against the merge but the navigational benefit of the merge is limited. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    @Marcocapelle, it is quite tricky in this case because their achievements are very different and the league's records aren't fully documented. I do think there is a solution where these two articles and their achievements can be better and more specifically categorized. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
    • @Omnis Scientia: can you please elaborate what the solution would be? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
      @Marcocapelle, well two solutions. I've been skimming through MLB categories and, as I've mentioned above but now can confirm, the only leagues fully categorized are the AL and NL - by achievement, by awards, etc. - due to them being the two leagues have defined MLB over a century (150 years in one case). So the simplest and, IMO, best solution is to delete this category as the list suffices.
      The second is not the best but the "Triple Crown (baseball)" category be divided into pitching and hitting and this way, the two articles can be better categorized and the KBO players in the list can be added there too. But, again, I would much rather just delete this category rather than wade into what would can potentionally become a complicated category tree if we try to categorize this league and others like it in the way the current MLB ones are. I don't think its worth the trouble just for the sake of two articles. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
      • @Omnis Scientia: correct me if I'm wrong, if you think only AL and NL should stay, are you planning to propose upmerging the Nippon and Negro categories as well? If that is the case a batch nomination would be more appropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
        @Marcocapelle, no because those aren't old MLB leagues - Nippon is the Japanese major league and Negros Leagues were the MLB equivalent for African American players - they recently recognized as such - back when MLB was segregated. Hence why they aren't in the MLB category and why I created a new "Triple Crown (baseball)" category to house them.
        The American Association (AA) was once part of MLB in the 19th-century but folded after a few years - and, unlike the others, which have multiple people to achieve this distinction, it had relatively few stars. In this case, the two players in this category achieved two different things which are related only by name. So applying WP:NARROWCAT seemed reasonable to me. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
        Adding to this: I moved the American Association category to this one because I assumed this was a straight forward nomination and merging would be made easier this way. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Note to closer: if its not against the rules, please disregard the category creator's oppose vote and base closing this category based on the others. The creator was assuming bad faith and insinuating that I had an agenda by starting this Cfd. Their vote is not based on any policy but entirely on attacking my intentions. If anything, please read my reasoning and close or relist based on that. Best regards, Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Second note to closer: please disregard the above bad faith comment—I'm not assuming here; if the nomination was not in bad faith, the above comment clearly is. I gave several valid reasons for opposing this proposal, then elaborated on them when the nominator rejected them, only to have the nominator state point blank that he refused to read what I said. Being the category creator is not a valid reason for having my opposition disregarded, nor is pointing out that the nominator previously tried to eliminate the parent category, and subsequently removed most of its contents after that nomination failed—particularly when the rationale for this nomination is that the category is small. But I will restate my other reasons for opposing the nomination:
(1) Major League Baseball officially recognizes both the American Association and the Negro Leagues as "major leagues", and that all major references prior to the inclusion of the latter already included American Association records as "major league" records (along with several others that are universally so treated), making the distinction being drawn by the nominator both technical and idiosyncratic.
(2) The American League and National League were themselves separate entities, and did not amalgamate into "Major League Baseball" until 2000; by insisting that a category listing major league baseball triple crown winners should only include players from "Major League Baseball", the nominator is excluding all National League triple crown winners and all but one of the American League winners as well. This creates an unexplained inconsistency, since these and all of their contents are still subcategories.
(3) Readers would naturally expect to find all major league triple crown winners in the same category, rather than having the American and National Leagues in one subcategory, and all other major league triple crown winners in the same category with Japanese and Korean baseball (and presumably any other international or minor leagues that might have produced triple crowns). The resulting category structure is confusing and counterintuitive; it does a disservice to readers by hiding subcategories that they would expect to find in the main category, giving the impression that there are no other major league triple crown winners, or alternatively that they are not on par with those of the American or National Leagues, when they have been officially so declared, and when those of the nominated category have always been so considered. P Aculeius (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
@P Aculeius, respectfully, you did not at all give any reasons with regards to THIS nomination and that's why I did not read through all your reasons. You went on a rant about baseball leagues which should be discussed on WP:Baseball, not on here. Please don't derail this Cfd with unrelated topics. This is a straight forward WP:NARROWCAT and the two Triple Crown winners won two different types of triple crowns; on top of that AA league leaders aren't categorized (same case with all defunct leagues). Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a lot of noise here. This is a content forum, not a conduct forum. If you think someone is acting in bad faith, WP:ANI is thataway. So – everyone – knock it off. With that out of the way: More uninvolved participation is needed to form consensus. Should we have some articles directly in Category:Triple Crown (baseball) winners?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster, my apologies. I only nominated this as a simple WP:NARROWCAT nomination and for no other reason. I honestly didn't expect such a huge reaction from the creator when I was simply following the policy set by the Baseball WikiProject. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Film post-production technology

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Post-production isn't a defining characteristic for these pages Mason (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Response to Johnbod's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Bordeaux tramway stops

Nominator's rationale: I'm not familiar with public transportation in France but it looks like these categories are duplicates of each other. Since this category is the only category in Category:Tram stops in France by system, it seems wiser to merge this category rather than doing a merge in the opposite direction. Liz 17:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:East German swimming people

Nominator's rationale: Do we really need "Swimming people categories" like this? Mason (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge the rest?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Persecution of Greeks in the Ottoman Empire before the 20th century

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OCMISC, this is an "all-other" category (other than the 20th century). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Maltese pop singer navigational boxes

Nominator's rationale: I see little reason to diffuse here. There are no other Maltese genre nav box categories for musicians. Just adds another layer/level of categorization/navigation that is unnecessary. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 16:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Script–font templates, deprecated

Nominator's rationale: This template had two pages which were deleted in TfD. If a template is unwanted, it should be sent to TfD or tagged with a deprecation template. This type of category is unhelpful and usually ends up lost. Gonnym (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Libertarian Party of Canada

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category for a small political party. User:Namiba 15:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:History of the Maratha Confederacy

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Support: Agree with nom's rationale. PadFoot (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:History of the University of Manchester

Nominator's rationale: Contains a single article which is not specifically about the history of the University of Manchester. AusLondonder (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Pedophilia in the Catholic church

Nominator's rationale: A duplicate of Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals, contains only subcategories, one which is already in the existing category. AusLondonder (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:German Research Foundation

Nominator's rationale: Recently created category serves no purpose, only contains the main article. AusLondonder (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Yeah German Research Foundation should be there unfortunately the creator of this category removed it from that category. AusLondonder (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Deutscher Wetterdienst

Nominator's rationale: Another recently created category with only a single article contained within. Serves no purpose. AusLondonder (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Foreign relations of the Kingdom of Georgia

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:2nd millennium in the Kingdom of Georgia

Nominator's rationale: delete, duplicate of Category:Centuries in the Kingdom of Georgia. The existence of the Kingdom of Georgia is wholly limited to the 2nd millennium. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Opposition to Ferenc Gyurcsány

Nominator's rationale: This category was already deleted by discussion once. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Ojarumaru episode lists

Nominator's rationale: Per content. Solidest (talk) 09:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Attack on Titan episode lists

Nominator's rationale: Per content. Currently, such categories are predominantly called '.... seasons'. Solidest (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Lists of Numbers (TV series) episodes

Nominator's rationale: Per content. Articles about seasons are distinct from lists of episodes articles and are neither lists nor included in the hierarchy of 'lists of episode' categories. Solidest (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Lists of Law & Order episodes by season

Nominator's rationale: Per content. 'Lists of episodes' categories should include 'Lists of episodes' articles. Solidest (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Union Nationale des Étudiants de France

Nominator's rationale: No purpose of a category with only a single article (the main article Union Nationale des Étudiants de France) AusLondonder (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Support per nom. This could be speedied Mason (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Hotels in Hainan

Nominator's rationale: Category only contains 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Emergent gameplay

Nominator's rationale: WP:TRIVIALCAT WP:SUBJECTIVECAT

Emergent gameplay refers "complex" situations in games that emerges from relatively "simple" mechanics. The criteria for inclusion is a little vague and the definition of a bit opinionated when you think about it. Emergent gameplay already mentions some of the articles listed here too. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)


September 17

Category:Precision FC players

Nominator's rationale: A semi-anonymous club. I don't think it deserves a category, especially since it only has two players, and the sources that mention that they play for it are from a blogging site and social media. EpicAdventurer (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Superoxide generating enzymes

Nominator's rationale: There's only one page and a redirect in this category. Upmege for now as it's not helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Toxic enzymes

Nominator's rationale: This category isn't very helpful with only one page in it. Mason (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
It's also not meaningfully different from Category:Protein toxins and can be merged/redirected into that. ― Synpath 11:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Related: while updating Category:Protein toxins with Botulinum toxin I found Category:Biological toxin weapons - a bizarrely named, small category with mostly protein toxins within it. I removed the small molecule toxins from it and think it should be merged to Category:Protein toxins. ― Synpath 12:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Saint Paul Seminary School of Divinity alumni

Nominator's rationale: The seminary no longer uses the School of Divinity title in its name or branding and has not for the past several years.~Darth Stabro 19:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:History of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

Nominator's rationale: delete, duplicate of Category:Military of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. I would not object renaming the latter to Category:Military history of the Republic of Afghanistan. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:SpaceX astronauts

Nominator's rationale: Prior to September 2024, all astronauts listed in Category:SpaceX astronauts had simply flown on a SpaceX capsule launched on a SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle. Now, with the completion of the recent private spaceflight mission Polaris Dawn, two SpaceX employees—Sarah Gillis and Anna Menon—have been astronauts (while employed by SpaceX) on this recent commercial spaceflight. It would be confusing to categorize the two of them as merely the sense of astronauts who have flown on SpaceX equipment, as they are also SpaceX employees, and are categorized in Category:SpaceX employee astronauts. (more emplyees are planned to fly on future spaceflights). N2e (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Lechitic nobility

Nominator's rationale: Arbitrary category: Lechites did not have nobility, because applying the concept of nobility to ancient tribes would be an anaccronism. More important: there is no sources that discuss "Lechitic nobility". --Altenmann >talk 18:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:20th-century disestablishments in East Germany

Nominator's rationale: delete, duplicate of Category:Disestablishments in East Germany by decade because the entire history of East Germany stayed within the 20th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Sports executives by sports organizations

Nominator's rationale: Delete; any category that can fit here is already fitted in the much better organized Category:Sports executives by sport. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Baseball players from Northern Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Delete and dual merge per nom. Only one article and that of the same person. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Major League Baseball players from Ireland

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge; so all these players, as stated in the category itself, were born in pre-1922 Ireland when it was still part of the UK. So I suggest this be merged with the UK category BUT also that it be allowed to be recreated if there are, in the future, enough players born in post-1922 Ireland to justify a category. This way, any confusion can be avoided. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Despite being technically correct, as a way to categorise players I don't see it as valuable to a reader. IMO moving "United Kingdom" to "Great Britain" would make more sense. Cashew.wheel (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
@Cashew.wheel, that would cut out anyone from Northern Ireland then. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I was initially going to do Cfd a merge all constitunency nation categories for this into the parent category since they are, historically less than a hundred UK-born players in MLB history. What do you think of that suggestion? Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Baseball venue navigational boxes

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge to parent categories with no objection to recreation if there are more templates fitting the criteria of this page. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:People from the State of Palestine

Nominator's rationale: My previous proposal to disambiguate was closed due to a lack of consensus, with some reasonable arguments referencing the millions of Palestinians in the diaspora who are not from the State of Palestine. Therefore, I propose a merge. No other country makes a distinction similar to that between Category:French people and Category:People from France. Sakakami (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

LGBT categories, round 3

Nominator's rationale: A third (much smaller) batch of categories which were omitted from batch 1 and batch 2. Rename to add the Q per WP:CONSUB and WP:C2D per Talk:LGBTQ#Requested move 14 August 2024. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
CFDS discussion

Category:Former objects

Nominator's rationale: Would it be correct to call these "former objects"? After all, a mine being shut down doesn't make it disappear, and being smashed into a million pieces doesn't remove something from existence. I don't think this category makes that much sense, and is heavily overlapping either way, so it should be merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
some of the items in former objects probably should not be there. a mine is not an object, its a geographical or even geological feature, not an object. its a structure of sorts. however, i still stand by this as my effort to create broader and broader categories up to the most basic categories on WP. maybe cull some categories out of it. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak keep The possible problems with the mine example aside, I agree with the nomination insofar as these here do not stop being objects as such, but they are no longer the type of object they once were. So the category makes sense in this regard. I can't think of a better title which describes this 100% accurately and remains concise at the same time, so I would tend to keep it as a helpful organizational tier as described by Fayenatic london. Category:People by former status likewise seems a good idea to have. Daranios (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Elite 11 participants

Nominator's rationale: This is a high school football competition. It is a non-defining characteristic User:Namiba 20:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - A list of participants on the main article (Elite 11) exists, making this a defining category. It being limited to high school players shouldn't be the only argument for deletion as it is a national competition by invite only. ~ Dissident93 20:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Taking part in this competition is a minor part of any player's career. It would definitely not be suitable for an introduction and sources do not consistently refer to it. Per WP:NONDEF, "a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject.

if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead section of an article (regardless of whether it is currently mentioned in the lead), it is probably not defining; if the characteristic falls within any of the forms of overcategorization mentioned on this page, it is probably not defining."--User:Namiba

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Second overall NFL draft picks

Nominator's rationale: A non-defining category. User:Namiba 19:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - As a main article (List of second overall NFL draft picks) exists, the category should be considered defining. ~ Dissident93 20:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. It is defining to be the first overall draft pick since that person is the FIRST of the draft and is considered to be the best player of all the picks. The second overall is the 30th-something pick in the draft and, while still great, is not going to be. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
"The second overall is the 30th-something pick in the draft" It's not the 30th pick, it's the 2nd. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
@WikiOriginal-9, you know, that's my bad, I mistook second OVERALL as second ROUND! But the point still stands. It still isn't defining in the way it is for a first overall. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Would the same logic be applied to the article then? I only made the category to match it. ~ Dissident93 17:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
@Dissident93, articles and categories have different criteria so the existance of the article isn't relevant to the Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Seems like WP:COMMONSENSE to me. ~ Dissident93 23:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
@Dissident93, your argument is that the category should exist because there is an article listing them. But that isn't how we categorize things at all. Just because there is a list article of something, it doesn't have to or even need to be categorized.
Second overall picks are WP:NONDEFINING and WP:TRIVIALCAT. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Habsburg Bohemia

Nominator's rationale: rename to same format as subcategories of Category:History of the Habsburg monarchy by country. It is not speediable because a redirect Habsburg Bohemia exists. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:German expatriates in the Czech lands

Nominator's rationale: delete, these weren't expatriates since Bohemia and Moravia were part of the Holy Roman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Members of the Chamber of Representatives of Belgium

Nominator's rationale: Belgium has a bicameral legislature. These categories are intended for members of the Chamber of Representatives, the lower chamber. There are separate categories for members of the Senate, the upper chamber. Using the term "legislature" in the category makes it ambiguous.Obi2canibe (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

How would that help overpopulation? We already have several hundred articles on English Knowledge (XXG) for Belgian MPs and this could potentially increase to more than 3,000 articles. Assuming an even distribution, that's 2,250 20th century members and 750 21st century members.--Obi2canibe (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Historical monuments in Uzbekistan

Nominator's rationale: delete, apart from mausoleums the category does not contain monuments and memorials. The mausoleum articles are already in Category:Mausoleums in Uzbekistan, part of Category:Monuments and memorials in Uzbekistan. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Depends what Uzbekistan calls its heritage-listed buildings. It appears to be something like "National Register of Immovable Property Objects of the Material and Cultural Heritage of Uzbekistan". -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename? If so, rename target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Empirical evidence

Nominator's rationale: There are only two pages in here, which can be linked directly if they're not already. Mason (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Reverse merger: empiricism is a narrower concept than empirical evidence: empiricism holds that true knowledge or justification comes only (or primarily) from empirical evidence. Empirical evidence per se makes no claim about its importance, whether it's primary or secondary in knowledge construction. fgnievinski (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Empiricism for completeness, but further participation from others to form consensus would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Diplomats of former countries

Nominator's rationale: I was inspired by a comment on @Johnpacklambert:'s page. I want us to consider renaming this category Diplomats by former country. It fits with the rest of the People by former country tree. Mason (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Defunct games

Nominator's rationale: Is it possible for a game to be defunct without relying on the Internet in some way? I think this is an unnecessary parent category since there's nothing that wouldn't fit into the subcategory. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
@Zxcvbnm It's complicated. Did you look at the entries there? It had some entries added that belong in the Category:Inactive online games‎ and I moved them there, so I assume you clicked on these and did not notice that the category is intended for games that mix physical and online components, but cannot be classified as online games. For example, there were board games like Golem Arcana or children games like Xtractaurs that have physical presence as well as online component that became defunct; as well as many defunct CCGs (those probably need their own category and populating it) like Sword Girls. I've pruned the category to those three entries, although I expect there are more such products to be added. Anyway, the point of this category is to list defunct (inactive) games that are not only online, but physical. You cannot classify Golem Arcana, Xtractaurs or Sword Girls as 'online games', as you played them in the real world; the first two had an online component, but defunct CCGs don't (and they need a separate category, to be honest). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
If the game depends on online to function, then that would make it an "online game", right? Even if it has a physical component, that would be useless without the computerized online part. Digital CCG's are also basically video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
@Zxcvbnm Not when the game has significant physical components, such as miniatures. Golem Arcana can be played with paper rules, IIRC. Anyway, I've created a new subcategory for Category:Discontinued collectible card games so now this is also valid as a parent category unifying such games with online ones and the weird hybrid ones like Golem Arcna and Xtractaurs. @BOZ in case they have some other games to add here, or comments. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Islam and slavery

Nominator's rationale: purge all content that is region-based or language-based rather than religion-based. For comparison, the article Slavery in the United States is not in Category:Christianity and slavery either. Possibly rename to Category:Islamic views on slavery and do the same for other religions. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Purge but not rename. I think the way it is works well. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
@Omnis Scientia: "the way it is" will not continue if it is purged per the nominator's proposal. – Fayenatic London 12:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
@Fayenatic london, you make a fair point. I'm definitely open to more suggestions on the matter. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't think that religions "been historically dominant in the society of those regions" is a good argument. This way of reasoning would imply that every social history article should be put in a religion category too, I do not think that would be a good idea. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of different ideas... further input would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:People from Daye

Nominator's rationale: Only contains one entry, and Daye is in Huangshi LibStar (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)


September 16

Category:Executed Ming dynasty people

Nominator's rationale: Seems duplicative.Hi! I've never done this before! Any mistakes are my own.There might be more of these for other periods. Category:People executed by the Ming dynasty seems better... treed? like in the category tree? Although the two are not congruent, since this is a child of Category:Executed Chinese people by period and the other one isn't, and this one is specifically for Chinese people and the other one isn't. Still seems like one category too many for essentially the same concept. Folly Mox (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The additional categories have not been tagged for a full week; relisting. If there are no further comments this should be all set for merging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Virat Kohli

Nominator's rationale: Not needed, as there are only a few articles directly about Kohli, and not enough to warrant a category. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Leaning keep; seems okay to me ATM and is the average size of most epon categories (and I think it will undoubted expand in the future). Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Of the 5 things in that category, Career of Virat Kohli is a spinoff of Virat Kohli that doesn't look to have had consensus to be created, Super V is is an Indian animated television series loosely based on Virat Kohli, so is only tangentially relevant to Kohli, and {{Virat Kohli series}} is up for deletion. As such, I see 2-3 sensible articles in this category only, which is not enough. For reference, Category:Sachin Tendulkar has 11. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:History of Bechuanaland Protectorate

Nominator's rationale: merge, two redundant category layers with two subcategories in total. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:History of the Ashanti Empire

Nominator's rationale: delete, duplicate of Category:Military of the Ashanti Empire. I would not object to renaming the latter to Category:Military history of the Ashanti Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:History of the Republic of Artsakh

Nominator's rationale: rename per main article History of Nagorno-Karabakh and because many articles in the category are about the period before the Republic of Artsakh was established. After this rename Category:Republic of Artsakh should become a subcategory instead of a parent category. By all means keep a redirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:André Previn

Nominator's rationale: With all related subcats in the "works by" category scheme, this eponymous parent is unnecessary. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 15:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Years

Nominator's rationale: I think it would worth moving the relevant sub-categories, for individual years, into Category:Years BC and Category:Years AD. What do others think? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Shooting people

Nominator's rationale: Newly created category that duplicates an existing category, and is extremely liable to being misunderstood and misused. These were created as parents for a new Category:Shooting coaches hierarchy, but the problem is that the name is highly ambiguous -- it isn't clearly communicating the distinction between the intended "people involved in sport shooting" and unintended uses like "people who shot other people" or "people who were shot" or "people who committed mass shootings" that wouldn't belong in the same place as sport shooters.
So since we already have Category:Sport shooters for people involved in sport shooting, and the coaches category has already been added to it, we don't need this to coexist alongside it. Bearcat (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced comment

I am also of the opinion to rename or remove this category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attorney001 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  • @Attorney001: please move your comment to the right section. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: I cannot determine what section this comment was intended for, and even perusing OP's edit history didn't shed any light — however, as it was simply sitting at the top of the page as a standalone comment, it was becoming a "comment" on every new nomination that got added above it, forcing every new nomination to have to be edited to move it again. Accordingly, I've given it a headline to stop that from happening, but it should still be moved if anybody can figure out where it belongs. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:People from Guararé

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Skiers from Shenyang

Nominator's rationale: Contains no entries. LibStar (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:People from Kangping County

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry in this category. LibStar (talk) 06:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:People from Faku County

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry in this category. LibStar (talk) 06:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:American expatriate soccer players in Turkey

Nominator's rationale: Per multiple discussions, triple-intersection soccer categories are not to be used. See: . BlameRuiner (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose; this is part of a very large category tree of expatriate sportspeople. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Dumbest Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:USERCAT for lacking any discernible collaborative function. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't really understand why, since this is under the subcategory of Wikipedians, and also has the humor template box. The userbox on the page was from an editable userbox template, so it can't really be deleted. It's a humorous user category that users can add to their page, and I don't see a problem with it. From Rushpedia, the free stupid goofball (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Animated television series about hippopotamuses

Nominator's rationale: Better title, as there is only one extant Knowledge (XXG) article about a live action television series about hippopotamuses, Potamus Park. FilmandTVFan50 (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)


September 15

Category:Scholastic Confucianism in Korea

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's no need to have this category with a single page in it. It's just not helpful for navigation. The page is already in Korean Confucianism Mason (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Israeli philosophy

Nominator's rationale: This is a redudant category layer that isn't helpful for navigation. There isn't a Israeli philosophy page. Mason (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Medieval mosques

more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge, these are mostly one-article isolated categories, not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment {{clc}} check here.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge 11th & 12th centuries only - that is, the first 6 categories in the proposal. Looking at Mosques by year of completion, most year-cats up to the 20th century have 1-3 articles. Looking laterally on either side of 15th-century mosques, all century-cats from the 13th century onward have at least 9 decade-cats, and most decade-cats from the 13th to the mid 19th century have 1-3 year-cats. The 11th & 12th centuries are the most barren outliers, with 1 and 2 decade-cats respectively, only 3 year-cats between them, and so are a better cutoff point than the 15th century. The next cohort to consider, if at all, is from the 13th to the 19th century, and should not be split arbitrarily at the 15th century.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Films directed by Vincent Moon

Nominator's rationale: The subject article was deleted at AFD. Graham87 (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Two of the three articles in the category refer to music videos in an article about the song. The third (and the redirect) refer to documentaries about bands. This might have been too small even if the article about the director had not been deleted. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Cultural depictions of Ken Griffey Jr.

Nominator's rationale: Delete; only one category and one article. Both are in appropriate subcats of Category:Baseball culture so no need to merge. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Rugby league plays

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge with no objection to recreate if there is more. Only two articles. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Lighthouse of Alexandria

Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic of the articles in this category. It rather is a "what links here" collection. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:People with cervical spine fracture

Nominator's rationale: A hodge-podge of people who died by hanging or other trauma, people who were paralyzed from an injury, and people who suffered a minor injury. Generally not a defining characteristic. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Knowledge (XXG) non-empty soft redirected categories

Nominator's rationale: See discussion at Template talk:Category redirect#Category:Knowledge (XXG) soft redirected categories which are double redirects – the Knowledge (XXG) prefix is not needed here and renaming promotes consistency with Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Don Young

Nominator's rationale: Practically everything in each of these categories is not "defined" by the politician, and are better served as just being interlinked. The bulk of each page are just the elections they were in or a thing named after the person. They're all made by the same category creator. Mason (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep There are a variety of reasons why I made these. Some of them were extremely long serving politicians, many of them are really significant names in their areas. Young and Stevens have dates and places named after themselves. Barney Frank is a significant LGBT figure. Walz is literally the Democratic nominee for VP. Youngkin has his own article for his tenure as governor. Manchin has his own article for his own political positions. You have to keep them. Keep all of these. Vinnylospo (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep I want to keep some of these because honestly. I just feel like all of the pages or categories I try to make often get removed. This is all in good faith. I seriously don’t mean any harm. When I make these articles, I have a real sense of accomplishment. I get really upset when this stuff gets removed. It almost feels like I wasted my time and I feel like no matter how often I try, I feel it leaves no impact and it’s removed. I’m just rambling here. I’m just very upset. Please don’t take any of this wrong. I really love making articles. It’s truly my passion. But how can I feel comfortable creating when I sometimes feel my work will get removed regardless? Vinnylospo (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Please don't double vote Mason (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will fix the links to this nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep The election they were in should be covered by eponymous categories. Vinnylospo is doing necessary work here. Dimadick (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Chemical looping technologies

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There are one two pages in this category, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will drop a note at Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Chemistry.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:The Numbers not in Wikidata

Nominator's rationale: To move where the articles have been recategorized to via the {{Cite The Numbers}} temp. Consistency with Category:The Numbers ID different from Wikidata. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Speedy redirect. There's no need to discuss this, especially since the proposed target "rename" already exists as a category, meaning the only thing that needs to happen is a categoryredirect. Bearcat (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The rename has already taken place in the template; should we keep a redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I should've been more clear with my relisting comment: There is consensus we should either redirect or just delete. Which one should we do?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)


September 14

Category:Forestry researcher stubs

Nominator's rationale: Stub category with fewer than 60 members; upmerge to Category:Academic biography stubs per WP:WPSS procedure. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Anti-piracy battles involving Great Britain

Nominator's rationale: I don't think we need to diffuse by century*nationality intersection, especially given that there are only 4 pages in here Mason (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Rodeo in the arts

Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:NARROWCAT Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Speedy discussion
@Marcocapelle: from Speedy Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:History of the Jews in the Middle East

Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, and keep a redirect, Middle East and West Asia are very overlapping concept. I will tag both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. ME includes all of Turkey and Egypt, but not the South Caucasus. WA excludes parts of Turkey and all of Egypt, but includes the South Caucasus. Ergo ME =/= WA.
I could possibly get behind "Middle East and West Asia", but that's a mouthful. Keeping separate ME and WA lists seems the better alternative. Lewisguile (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • ME is a subcat of WA, which is certainly defensible. But much of the content of WA is clearly ME. If we decide what ME actually covers, say it in a note, & rearrange accordingly, won't that fix things? Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
We can and should decide what these terms cover for the purposes of the category, and say that. We should be doing that for all such ambiguous terms, such as Central Europe etc. Otherwise chaos. Johnbod (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Prehistoric Asia

Nominator's rationale: merge, it is unclear how the two categories are supposed to be different from each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge direction? (I will tag Category:Prehistory of Asia.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  • I don't have a preferred merge direction, maybe User:Nederlandse Leeuw has, one way or the other. I do notice however that not just Asia has this issue, it applies likewise to all other continents. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    Short answer: I'm not sure what to advise here. Seeing my previous proposal for renaming Ancient Fooland to Ancient history of Fooland was a failure, I'm reluctant to to suggest any direction to take into making these catnames more consistent, certainly as long as the main article titles are not in some way WP:TITLECONned first. But that is a discussion that should probably take place elsewhere and not here.
Long answer
Purely by catname and main article names, Category:Prehistory by country seems to show Prehistoric Fooland is more commonly used than Prehistory of Fooland or Fooian prehistory. But there are some notable differences that should make us cautious to make a WP:C2C argument too quickly.
These three continents almost consistently have subcatnames like Prehistoric Fooland, usually (but not always) with correspondingly titled main articles:
Category:Prehistoric Europe by country > Prehistoric Europe
Category:Prehistoric Africa by country > Prehistoric Africa
Category:Prehistoric Asia by country > Prehistoric Asia
But, present-day countries have inconsistent article titles, so there's no easy WP:C2D argument to make here. To take Europe as an example:
versus
versus
A casual observation may be that Prehistoric Fooland is much more popular for articles on the British Isles, other islands and peninsulas, but Prehistory of Fooland seems more popular for areas in continential Europe those geographical borders may not be that clear-cut.
The other continents are more inconsistent, and we've got a lot of redundant layers, like
Category:Prehistory of Central America:
There is a lot of cleaning up we could do, but where do we even start? Like I said in my short answer, I think main article titles should be made consistent first if we want to harmonise catnames afterwards. WP:C2D stipulates that catnames follow main article titles, not the other way around.
NLeeuw (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Chemical compounds by type

Nominator's rationale: The contents of this Category clearly don't fit with the current name: none of them is "by type", as they all use different parameters.

which is what gave me the idea for the proposed rename. Honestly, I'm not entirely sure that's the right name, so if somebody comes up with a better name I'll be more than happy to support. Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

By property? Remsense ‥ 论 15:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still looking for thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Greek mythology by region

Nominator's rationale: These categories are for mythology relating to the places rather than mythology necessarily originating in those places, as the current titles imply. There are many Greek myths about places didn't originate in those places and many for which it is impossible to know where the myths originated. Some of the subcategories of Category:Greek mythology by region already follow the proposed naming convention. Mclay1 (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The rationale proposes a distinction without a difference. Additionally, renaming these will make them harder to search for, since there are already too many entries for "Mythology" to display in the search window, while most of the articles using demonyms appear right away when someone starts to type them. Consistency is not a strong argument when balanced against convenience. A handful of these names may not be familiar to readers, but readers who are familiar enough with the topics to be searching for them would probably recognize them; and many of the proposed names are equally objectionable.
For instance, "Mythology of Elefsina", rather than "Eleusis", since inexplicably the entire history of ancient Eleusis is covered under the unrecognizable modern name of the town; "Mythology of Corfu", as though "Corfu" were the name of a place one encounters in classical history or mythology; "Mythology of Corinthia", when "Corinthia" is the name of a modern administrative region of Greece that did not exist in antiquity; "Mythology of Arcadia, Peloponnese", as though any other Arcadia would have distinctive mythological topics; "Mythology of Salamis Island", when Salamis was never so called "Salamis Island" in antiquity and will not generally be encountered under that name, and there is no corresponding mythological topic for the other Salamis, in Cyprus. P Aculeius (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Categories are not named based on the convenience of searching for the category name; most readers are not finding categories that way, and helping users get to them quickly is not a consideration. First and foremost should be accuracy, and these current names are not accurate. There is a distinction between the mythology relating to a place and the local mythology of the people from that place, but there is of course overlap and the proposed names work for both.
Secondly, using the modern names of the places would be consistent with the rest of the category trees for those places (we use "Greece" and not "Hellas"); however, if it would be better to use the ancient names of the places, we can do that rather than discarding the entire rename for that reason.
To address two specific ones: Corinthia is used for the ancient region (see Regions of ancient Greece#Corinthia), and the disambiguation in the category tree for Category:Arcadia, Peloponnese is necessary to distinguish it from other places called Arcadia. We generally keep subcategory names consistent for clarity even if they wouldn't be ambiguous. Just because we don't currently have mythology categories for other places of the same name, doesn't mean it wouldn't be confusing without disambiguation. Mclay1 (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I will concede that the searching convenience is not a strong argument for categories, the way it would be with article titles. But the proposed titles are still counter-intuitive, so it is not entirely irrelevant; and if your argument is for consistency, then both categories including the subject and their corresponding articles should begin with the name of the place represented, rather than a generic word such as "mythology". When you're researching mythological subjects, do you look under "Greek Mythology" or "Mythology of Ancient Greece"? "Norse Mythology" or "Mythology of the Norse?"
There may be an argument to make for moving some of these titles, where the demonym is not as familiar as the name of the place, e. g. "Mythology of Cyprus, Epirus, Salamis" may be more logical than "Cypriot, Epirot, Salaminian mythology", but this would be the case for only a few of them, which again demonstrates that consistency, while not entirely irrelevant, is less helpful for determining titles than natural language.
With respect to the modern names, they are simply anachronistic in speaking of subjects from antiquity, and virtually all scholarship written in English over the last three centuries will use Greek- and Roman-era names in preference to modern ones. In some cases such as "Greece", there is a further convention of Anglicization, but it forms on the Roman-era "Graecia" rather than Greek "Hellas". But you will have trouble finding any scholarship referring to the "Elefsinian mysteries", or similar descriptions, and if there is any, it will probably be in recent translations of modern Greek works.
I will retract my criticism of "Corinthia", finding that the term is used for the territory belonging to Corinth in antiquity. However, "Corfu" is as anachronistic as "Elefsina" and even less recognizable; and consistency within category trees is a weak argument for disambiguation when there is no risk of confusion. Nobody says "Arcadia, Peloponnese" or "Salamis Island", and there is no need to do so in these category names just because disambiguation is unavoidable in other contexts.
It's not merely that we don't currently have categories for mythology of other, similarly-named places, but that it is unlikely that such categories would exist in the first place. For instance, the Salamis in Cyprus would presumably be covered under the mythology of Cyprus; and there is no other ancient Arcadia that would have any distinct mythology; the barely-known Cretan town is usually called "Arcades", and other places called "Arcadia" were not established or did not bear the name until after paganism was stamped out. The strongest argument for disambiguation would be "Thebes, Greece", but the corresponding article and category on the mythology of Thebes in Egypt are under "Theban Triad". There is not much risk of confusion, and a hatnote would probably be sufficient to help anyone who arrives at the wrong topic.
To re-iterate, consistency is not a strong argument for renaming categories that are already unambiguous, particularly when the extant names are what readers would most likely expect to find; and in many cases renaming them to be consistent with each other would make them inconsistent with article titles that readers would expect to encounter. It would be better to deal with these on a case-by-case basis. P Aculeius (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus; additional comments would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  • I do not have an opinion about "fooian" versus "of foo", generally, but I concur with P Aculeius that we should not use modern names when it conflicts with common names of ancient Greece as used by classical scholars. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:DC Comics animated series title cards

Nominator's rationale: Both cover the exact same scope as these title cards are just the on-screen logos and have overlapping descriptions and categories. Cats are not too big to warrant separate ones over a technicality, which can be confusing, especially when both have logo and title card/intertitle-named files. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Video games about aircraft

Nominator's rationale: These are overlapping categories. THe merge target is older and was merged into this one outside of the cfd process. Mason (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment These cannot be overlapping categories as Category:Aviation video games currently does not contain any content. I also believe you are saying I should have renamed Category:Aviation video games rather than creating a new category. Though these two categories are technically different, as the name and subcategories have or had a different structure, also Category:Helicopter video games wasn't a part of Category:Aviation video games before I redirected the category. Furthermore the category Category:Video games about aircraft is very small, just saying. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
You removed all the content from the Aviation category. All of the excuses/explanations you've listed does not justify circumventing the CFD process. Mason (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
QuantumFoam66 (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)


September 13

LGBT articles

Further nominations
Nominator's rationale: This is batch number 2 (following batch 1) of a bunch of category renames following Talk:LGBTQ#Requested move 14 August 2024, which moved LGBT to LGBTQ. Because similar moves were opposed at CFD, these are being nominated here versus CFDS. However, the rationale is still the same: rename per WP:C2D and WP:CONSUB.

I would ask that we not try to delete/merge/etc. any of these categories. That can be the subject of a further nomination. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Rename per nom. Some of the pages in these categories have already been updated, so consistency is better as per WP:CONSUB. Lewisguile (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Transgender and medicine

Nominator's rationale: Transgender is an adjective, does not make grammatical sense. Ranleo09 (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Transgender in Russia

Nominator's rationale: Category is the same as Category:Russian transgender people. Transgender is also an adjective, not a noun. Transgender what in Russia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranleo09 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

People of Middle Eastern descent

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up of Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 27#Category:Middle Eastern diaspora. I have already manually merged and redirected many Middle Eastern descent categories into West Asian descent categories. Only now have I realized that their history may also need to be merged. Below is the list --Sakakami (talk) 09:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose all – the term “Middle Eastern” even if not necessarily geographically correct; is a lot more widely used than “West Asian”, therefore, I oppose the renames. Hurricane Clyde 🌀 03:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Manually merged
  • Comment – I understand the rationale, but I find this proposal and the previous ones that went through with very little discussion quite odd. "Middle Eastern" is a far more common term than "West Asian". Is there a reason we need to go that way instead of the reverse? If there are countries in West Asia that don't fit into the Middle East, is it necessary to group every country into a region for ancestry? Mclay1 (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
@Mclay1 – We have categories for Category:People of Central Asian descent, Category:People of East Asian descent, Category:People of South Asian descent and Category:People of Southeast Asian descent. While both Middle East and West Asia are somewhat imprecise, West Asia aligns better with the existing geographic categorization. Middle East is a political term that has changed frequently depending on political and historical contexts, whereas 'West Asia' is a more consistent geographical term. It excludes most of Egypt and the northwestern part of Turkey, while including the southern part of the Caucasus. Additionally, 'West Asia' is arguably a more neutral term; for example, see the WANA Institute in Jordan. Sakakami (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Those other Asian regions are common terms, whereas "West Asia" is basically a term created to fill the gap and replace the Middle East for the reasons you mentioned. While that might make sense for geography, I'm not sure it makes sense for ancestry. I doubt many people would consider themselves to be "West Asian" as opposed to Middle Eastern. It feels like we're inventing our own classification system just for the sake of having neat subcategories rather than reflecting outside usage. Mclay1 (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Hear, hear. And "Middle East", as a term, doesn't necessarily imply the subject is located in Asia, whereas "West Asia" mandates it. As such, "West Asia" would exclude Egypt (Africa) and parts of Turkey (Europe), whereas "Middle East" wouldn't. While there are some places in "West Asia" that aren't in the Middle East, I think the latter category is more elastic by definition, whereas West Asia will always be only in Asia. But I could live with "ME & WA" as a category, or even "NA, ME & WA", but at that point, does it become the "Greater Middle East"? Lewisguile (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion on merge direction would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete the entire category tree Most people wouldn't consider themselves "West Asian" or "middle Eastern" but Arab, Assyrian, Lebanese, etc. Also delete the other Asia region descent categories for the same reason. (t · c) buidhe 23:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I would support Delete the entire category tree as well per WP:NONDEF. --Sakakami (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Reverse merge, including the untagged categories in the list above that were manually moved or merged out-of-process. Middle Eastern is the commonly-used term for the ethnicity, as evidenced by the recently-adopted U.S. federal government standards, which added "Middle Eastern or North African" as a race and ethnicity category. - Eureka Lott 16:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
    This is not a single ethnicity, but rather a category encompassing people descended from West Asian (also known as Middle Eastern) countries. --Sakakami (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
    Oppose merge. I appreciate the good intentions behind the proposal, but the Middle East is a different category than West Asia. It may include nationalities that are otherwise European or African, depending on whether one uses a broad or narrow definition of each. If someone identifies as having Middle Eastern heritage, but their origins are in North Africa or Europe, would we exclude them from the category? It doesn't make sense to me. It seems like an attempt for symmetry regardless of how these categories work in reality.
    That said, I could probably support a combined "Middle East and West Asia" category, but that may be a mouthful. At least no one is left out that way, though. Lewisguile (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
    • @Lewisguile: if someone identifies as having Middle Eastern heritage, but their origins are in North Africa or Europe, -> can you give some example articles where this applies? Because I don't have a clue yet how it would work. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
      Well I was thinking specifically of Egyptians in a list like "People of West Asian descent"—they aren't in West Asia, but are generally considered to be in the Middle East. And vice versa, someone in the South Caucasus might see themselves as West Asian but not Middle Eastern, so they couldn't go in a singular "People of Middle Eastern descent" article. (The former example seems more obviously wrong, though.)
      So replacing one category with the other means those people don't fit the new list so get left off, or we have to shoehorn them into categories where they don't fit. It's not like Egyptians are particularly rare, at any rate.
      The more I think about it, the more I think "Middle East and West Asia" is better than having one category subsume the other, though having two categories still seems the best to me. Lewisguile (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Readers

Nominator's rationale: Only one actual page in here. The other is a re-direct. The name is extremely vague. Mason (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus seems to favor a change, but what exactly that change should be needs further discussion. Should this category's contents be merged elsewhere, or should the category be deleted? Should a redirect be kept, should it become a {{category disambiguation}}, or should it become a red link?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:People from Lahoma, Oklahoma

Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Endemic Fauna of

Nominator's rationale: Current subcategories can be split even further with a subcategory Category:Endemic Moth Species of (insert country) as a majority of the species listed in these subcategories are moths and in the case of a few of them, even more categories . --YourAverageWeeb (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Multiplayer vehicle operation games

Category:Vehicle simulation games with co-operative control

Nominator's rationale: current category name does not reflect actual category purpose at all; "multiplayer" can also mean the more general sense of any games with several players. it is vital to change the title, to show some indication of the actual category definition and scope, as being focused on vehicle games with cooperative control of the vehicle, by several players. Sm8900 (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Just to clarify the scope - when you say it's a vehicle simulation game, that means it should be primarily that, not just arcade-style driving and shooting guns in co-op. Simulators tend to be about accuracy and comprehensiveness. For example, I wouldn't call the Battlefield series vehicle sims, and with the new name they should probably be excluded. But they fit into the current name. Solidest (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Although Knowledge (XXG) now has a problem with this distinction. The vehicular combat game and racing game branches are currently referred to as a subtype of vehicle simulation game, although they are clearly not simulation as a whole - the article on racing explicitly states that there is an arcade-style racing genre and a sim racing genre, which is what real simulation is. And arcade-style games are themselves contradictory to the concept described in the simulation video game article. So perhaps this can be ignored here for now, and the problem needs to be addressed at a higher level. Solidest (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
ok. in that case, how about " Vehicle cooperative-control operation games"? Sm8900 (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Control and operation in this context mean the same thing. I would go with Video games with co-operative vehicle control if you need to include split-screen games, or "Online video games" if not. Solidest (talk) 07:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
@Solidest ok, but sorry, just to clarify, what is the full phrase for option 2, in your comment above? do you meant choice A or choice B below, as the second option?
  • Choice A for option 2: Online video games
  • Choice B for option 2: Online video games with co-operative vehicle control
thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I meant option B. Also given that we have Category:Multiplayer online games, the full variant should probably be "Multiplayer online games with co-operative vehicle control", but I'm not sure if we need to put "multiplayer" explicitly in the title in this case, since "co-op" probably implies it? So we can probably use the root "multiplayer online vgs", but not specify it in the title, staying with "Online video games with co-operative vehicle control". Solidest (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
@Solidest ok, i appreciate your answer. I would like to go with "Video games with co-operative vehicle control." since those games will probably be added periodically, and I don't want to exclude them. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
by the which ones had a split screen? you may have more knowledge than me, actually. do you mean Space Lords, for example? Sm8900 (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Civic nationalism

Nominator's rationale: delete, it is not a defining characteristic of particular political parties. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete difficult to make a bright line distinction with other types of nationalism, so unsuitable for categorization. Most countries in practice are a mixture of both. (t · c) buidhe 01:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Topical postage stamps

Nominator's rationale: Merge all; these categories have three or less items. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:2020–2021 Minneapolis–Saint Paul racial unrest

Nominator's rationale: rename per main article title. This is not a case of speedy because the parent category is discussed below. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:2020–2021 United States racial unrest

Nominator's rationale: to align the category's title and scope with the main article United States racial unrest (2020–present). 1857a (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as split; requested by Marcocapelle that I relist the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  • I have just created separate year categories, at least for 2020 and 2021, and these year categories are perfectly fine. But there are also 5 articles and a subcategory that span multiple years, so there is no reason to delete Category:2020–2021 United States racial unrest after the year categories have been created. Note that "split" in CfD jargon means "diffuse, then delete". In this case Category:2020–2021 United States racial unrest is perfectly fine as a parent of the new year categories and for the 5 articles and subcategory that span multiple years. In short: diffuse ok, delete not needed. The only thing I would still change is rename to 2020–2023 or to 2020s. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

By-state law citation templates

Nominator's rationale: Single member categories for templates which impede navigation. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Partial support – in my opinion, I think merging the law citation templates category with the law category is a good idea. But maybe keep that and the templates category separate. That’s my 2¢ anyway. Hurricane Clyde 🌀 03:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
My reasoning is that I could see a state templates category having stuff that does not necessarily involve state laws. Such as perhaps parks, roads, cities, landmarks, etc. That’s why I think the state templates themselves should remain a separate standalone category.
Although the other two appear to be redundant to me (at least in my opinion); and should probably be merged. Hurricane Clyde 🌀 03:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Critics of Black Lives Matter

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OPINIONCAT. Their opinions on this particular social movement are non-defining in the vast majority of cases. User:Namiba 16:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Brazilian footballers at FC Shakhtar Donetsk

Nominator's rationale: Category for a non-defining intersection of traits. While we do have general " expatriate sportspeople in " categories, we do not have any established scheme of microcategorizing them for each specific individual team they may have played for in that other country. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Weather events with particularly dangerous situation watches

Nominator's rationale: Category for a non-defining characteristic. A "particularly dangerous situation watch" is just wording that the Weather Service sometimes uses when it sends out a weather alert, so the weather events themselves are not defined by whether the National Weather Service used those particular words or not. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Neutral – to be honest, I had created the category because the draft: list of particularly dangerous situation watches wasn’t going anywhere. I’m not going to oppose deletion on this, but I’m not necessarily going to give my explicit support for it either. Hurricane Clyde 🌀 15:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
And that’s coming from the one who created the category. Hurricane Clyde 🌀 15:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I do want to ask though. If this does get deleted; can the deleting administrator please salt the title? Because at least one other person wanted to create the category including @GeorgeMemulous. Hurricane Clyde 🌀 17:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Medical doctors in British media

Nominator's rationale: Category for a non-defining intersection of unrelated traits. Medical doctors all over the world frequently appear as talking heads and experts in media coverage of health-related topics and/or moonlight as full-on health journalists themselves, so this would be entirely subjective and unmaintainable: should it contain every medical doctor who has ever appeared in media at all, or is there some specific and arbitrary minimum number of media appearances that a medical doctor has to make before they belong in this category?
So "medical doctors in media" is not a defining intersection of traits in its own right, meaning that no Category:Medical doctors in media parent or "Medical doctors in media" siblings exist at all, and Britain doesn't have any special need for this if no other country has such a thing. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
That doesn't make it okay. If no other country has one of these, then the UK doesn't need it either. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep anyway, but we should not be doing a three-card-trick, heads we win, tails you lose shuffle with Afd, as has happened before. Perhaps Afd closers should be made to check whether categories proposed as a solution are viable. For the ones I recognised it was defining, indeed the only reason most are notable - do you have examples where it isn't defining? These can be purged. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Again, the issue is WP:OCARBITRARY. To be viable, this category would have to impose a cutoff as to how many times the doctor had appeared in media before the category became warranted, and it would be completely unmaintainable without such an arbitrary cutoff — but we don't allow categories with arbitrary cutoff criteria. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Cities formerly served by Chicago and North Western

Nominator's rationale: Categories for a non-defining characteristic. Per longstanding consensus, we do not categorize cities for their geographic location on railroad lines that serve(d) them -- and if we don't categorize them for current railroad lines, we obviously shouldn't categorize them for former railroad lines either. Absolutely no other "Cities formerly served by X" categories exist at all but these two, and the category system is not The Book of Lists, where you can just use them to create a list of absolutely anything you want a list of: we categorize things by their defining characteristics, not by every individual characteristic they might happen to possess. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:J. D. Souther albums

Nominator's rationale: https://www.jdsouther.net/bio states "Please note that John David Souther is professionally known as JD Souther (not J.D. Souther)." GoingBatty (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Economy of the Empire of Brazil

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2F. Only contains main article Economy of the Empire of Brazil, which is already in Category:Economies by former country. NLeeuw (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Association football paintings

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge; only two articles. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Question: what is the minimum number of articles required for a category, and which guideline specifies this? Cnbrb (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Per various previous discussions, five or six are considered ok, or fewer if there is very clear "potential for growth". No doubt someone has links. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I have actually been trying to find out. Have tried ploughing through WP:CAT but can't anything obvious. A clear guideline would be really useful as this is all a bit vague. We can't expect editors to sift through "previous discussions" to ascertain proper usage. Cnbrb (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
@Johnbod, I did check before nominating the category. There really aren't many articles on sports paintings, most of which are wrestling or boxing. There are a few of rugby football ones but not more association football ones. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
True; a couple of paintings with "football" in the title are actually rugby or Aussie rules. I thought more might come to light. Cnbrb (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Party lists

Nominator's rationale: Party lists are also lists of candidates. The distinction between the two categories isn't apparent and thus makes it harder to find similar lists in other countries. Dajasj (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Your latest changes made it so that Category:Party lists in South African general elections is not part of Category:Lists of political candidates by nationality, which I believe it should be because it is a list of candidates. Dajasj (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Shades of black

Nominator's rationale: A black horse is not a shade of color, but color black is a defining characteristic of black horses. (BTW: we should do similarly for other subcats in Category:Shades of color, so that one could properly categorize fauna and flora notably associated with particular colors.) fgnievinski (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Bishops of the Catholic Patriotic Association

Nominator's rationale: Consistent with main category and Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association Amigao (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:African computer businesspeople

Nominator's rationale: upmerge for now. There's no need to diffuse this occupation by continent until it's diffused by nationality Mason (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 12

Older discussions

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

Knowledge (XXG) categorization
Guidelines
Help pages
Discussions
Projectspace essays
Userspace essays

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑